Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

Oral Answers to Questions — MILITARY SERVICE.

BEVERIDGE COMMITTEE'S REPORT.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Minister of Labour whether the committee set up under the chairmanship of Sir William Beveridge, to examine the employment of skilled men in the Forces, has yet reported; and, if so, whetehr he will acquaint the House with the nature of that report.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Bevin): The Committee have made an interim report, which will be published without delay.

MEDICAL EXAMINATION.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in order to assist medical boards in testing men for service in the Army, he will request approved societies to supply the boards with the medical history of each case so as to avoid as far as possible passing those whose medical history makes it obvious that they are physically incapable of making efficient soldiers?

Mr. Bevin: The investigation of previous medical history forms an important part of the medical examination, which includes careful questioning on this matter by the examining doctors. In addition, every man is informed, when called for medical examination, that the medical board will be prepared to give careful consideration to medical evidence regarding any serious illnesses or disabilities from which he has suffered, and he is also asked to complete a questionnaire designed to elicit information as to certain aspects of his previous medical history. I have given careful consideration to the hon. Member's suggestion, but I am advised that it would not supplement the informa-

tion already obtained to an extent sufficient to counterbalance the administrative difficulties in the way of its adoption.

Mr. Davies: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that most men cannot give facts about previous illnesses, and if a man was asked to secure his medical history from his approved society, that would surely be very helpful if he presented it to the medical board?

Mr. Bevin: Having administered an approved society, I would not place too much reliance on the medical history that such societies possess.

Dr. Edith Summerskill: Is my right hon. Friend aware that recruits suffering from mental trouble are reluctant to give facts as to past illnesses, and therefore men subject to psychological disturbance are accepted who have eventually to be discharged?

Mr. Bevin: The percentage of people who have had to be discharged is very low. I feel sure that, owing to the care taken in admitting people to the Army, the results have been better than in any previous experience though there have been mistakes, as there must inevitably be when such large numbers have been called up.

Sir Robert Young: Will my right hon. Friend remember that many men hide defects from which they suffer?

Mr. Bevin: The Question asks whether I can get the facts from an approved society, and, quite seriously, I say that, having administered an approved society, the medical evidence in their possession would be no great guide.

Mr. James Griffiths: asked the Minister of Labour what steps are taken by the Medical Boards, Armed Forces Act, to prevent men with tendencies to tuberculosis being recruited into the Forces; and whether it is proposed to improve the system of examination, in view of the number of men discharged from the Forces on account of tuberculosis?

Mr. Bevin: Arrangements have been made for notification to the medical boards of particulars of every man of military age whose name appears on the tuberculosis register kept under the Public Health (Tuberculosis) Regulations,


1930 In addition, every man examined is asked to state whether he has ever suffered from tuberculosis or received treatment for tuberculosis or suspected tuberculosis, and careful attention is given to any medical certificates which may be produced. It is generally recognised that incipient or latent pulmonary tuberculosis cannot usually be diagnosed by ordinary clinical examination, but where-over there is reason to suspect tuberculosis the board refers the man for radiological or other special examination ay the tuberculosis officer of the local authority of the area in which he lives. A suggestion that the chest of every recruit should be radiologically examined was fully considered last year by the Medical Advisory Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Horder, and the Committee decided that its adoption was impracticable.

Mr. Griffiths: While appreciating my right hon. Friend's reply, may I ask him whether he will give serious consideration to the representations which, I believe, have been made by the authority in Wales responsible for sanitorium treatment, who express grave concern at the increasing number of men coming back from the Armed Forces and going to them for treatment?

Mr. Bevin: I will study the report and, if it is necessary, refer it to Lord Horder's Committee.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the approved societies have a much fuller medical record of these cases?

Mr. Bevin: I do not think so, because these cases are compulsorily notifiable.

Dr. Summerskill: Will my right hon. Friend say why, if it is practicable to X-ray every recruit in America, it is impracticable in this country?

Mr. Bevin: It was found to be impracticable, and I understand that it is a question of equipment and of the requisite personnel to examine the results. That supply is not forthcoming. It was not found practicable at that time to examine every person radiologically.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR EFFORT.

WAR-TIME NURSERIES.

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Labour how many war emergency nurseries he has recommended for establishment; and how many are now in working order?

Mr. Bevin: By the end of May, 1941, 157 war-time nurseries had been recommended by my officers. Since that date responsibility for reviewing the need for nurseries, for the children both of evacuated mothers and of those in employment, has been placed upon the maternity and child welfare authorities, to whom my officers give the necessary information direct as to the needs of industry. There are at present 40 whole-time and 104 part-time nurseries open, 27 whole-time and 19 part-time are approved and shortly to open, and others are in preparation.

Miss Ward: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the need is really met by part-time nurseries? Is he satisfied with the whole position?

Mr. Bevin: I am not satisfied with part-time arrangements, but it is sometimes the best you can do in war circumstances.

WORKERS' HOLIDAYS.

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Sir HERBERT WILLIAMS:

13. To ask the Minister of Labour whether, in the interest of continued productive efficiency of all classes of workers, he will take the necessary steps to ensure that all Government Departments concerned will co-operate with manufacturing, trading and commercial undertakings to enable at least one week's holiday to be taken; and whether he will request the Minister of War Transport to make the necessary arrangements with the railway companies and the road transport companies so that the necessary transport facilities shall be available?

Sir H. Williams: This Question, which affects about 10 Departments of State and was addressed to the Prime Minister, has been transferred to the Ministry of Labour.

Mr. Bevin: The Government announced in May their view that a week's holiday should in general be taken this year but that special facilities for travel cannot be made available.

Sir H. Williams: Were the trains which were run last Saturday put on because the crowds turned up or because the Railway Executive had arranged for them in advance?

Mr. Bevin: That is a question that must be addressed to the Minister of War Transport.

CANTEENS.

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Labour how many canteens he has ordered to be established; how many have been built and equipped; and how many have been provided with rationed foods?

Mr. Bevin: Legal directions, under my orders, have been given for canteens at about 150 factories, including shipyards, and 25 building sites, and notices have been served on 10 dock authorities to secure improved facilities. Most canteens at such places have been or are being established voluntarily, and, therefore, the foregoing figures are no index to the number of canteens in existence. New canteens have lately been completed and opened at an estimated rate of about 100 a month. So far as I am aware, they are all supplied with rationed' foods.

Miss Ward: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied with the position as regards the speeding-up of the building of canteens and the food?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir, but we are improving the position as to dealing with the question of priorities for supplies of equipment for canteens by centralising the authority, which I think will speed up the supply of equipment.

Miss Cazalet: Is the right hon, Gentleman satisfied that the standard of cooking is kept up in these canteens?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, I am satisfied that attention is given to the standard of cooking. I have seen sample menus, and the Ministry has been advised by good experts and canteen people who have been helping me in the development of the canteens.

Mr. Thorne: Cannot you get good advice from a good housewife?

TRANSFER OF LABOUR.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Minister of Labour whether persons following certain occupations can now be called upon

by officers of Employment Exchanges to transfer their labour under penalty to occupations selected for them by those officers; and, if so, under what legal authority is this done?

Mr. Bevin: Yes, Sir. Under Regulation 58A of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, the Minister of Labour and National Service or any National Service officer duly appointed by him may direct any person in the United Kingdom to perform any service in the United Kingdom which the Minister considers him capable of performing.

Mr. Davies: May we take it, therefore, that we have now reached the stage of industrial conscription?

Mr. Bevin: The powers conferred upon the Minister were carried by the House unanimously.

Mr. Messer: Is there any safeguard that a person shall not be transferred to an employment at a rate of wages lower than he was receiving before?

Mr. Bevin: No, Sir. The House unanimously agreed that transfers to other work should carry work at the rate for the new job.

WOMEN.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: asked the Minister of Labour what is the position of girls of calling-up age who have entered employment in civilian occupations to release men for more urgent services; and whether they will be regarded as reserved or not?

Mr. Bevin: Whilst I recognise that special consideration must be given to cases where a woman has been taken on and trained specifically to replace a man released for more urgent services, it is not possible to give an unqualified assurance that such women will not be asked to transfer if within the registered age groups. If her domestic circumstances render her free to take employment wherever her services are required, she may be asked to transfer if suitable arrangements can be made for her to be replaced by an older woman.

Sir T. Moore: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that shops and industries not engaged in war production are finding the position very difficult in


view of the calling up of men and women, and will he endeavour to ease the position as far as possible?

Mr. Bevin: I have given definite instructions to exercise care. I would ask those engaged in those trades to pay special attention at this stage of the manpower problem, to the employment of elder women in order that younger women nay be released for transfer to other work f necessary, sometimes in other areas.

Mr. Cocks: Are we to understand that, f arrangements. cannot be made to substitute older women, they will not be transferred?

Mr. Bevin: I cannot give that assurance. The urgency of war production must be the guiding principle.

LODGING ALLOWANCES (TRANSFERRED WORKERS).

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that the scheme of lodging allowances for transferred industrial workers does not apply to non-industrial workers who take up temporary appointments in the Civil Service away from home; and whether he will adjust this anomaly?

Mr. Bevin: The scheme of lodging allowances for workers transferred away from home to work of national importance is designed to assist in moving workers required for industrial work and does' not apply to members of the Civil Service, whose remuneration is a matter for my, right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that there should be this distinction, and that allowances should be given in one case and not in the other?

Mr. Bevin: I do not think I should be called upon to say whether I am satisfied with anything. I can only give the facts.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL DEFENCE.

CONFIDENTIAL POST (APPOINTMENT).

Professor A. V. Hill: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the sole reason why the appointment to a confidential post under his Department of a lady, of whose name

he has been informed, a British subject of British parentage, and the widow of a British subject who served as an officer in the Army throughout the last war, was cancelled, was, as stated to her, that she and her late husband had devoted much of their times and resources in recent years to aiding and befriending refugees from Nazi oppression; and whether he will reconsider this decision?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Herbert Morrison): The post in question is of a highly confidential character, and I should not feel justified in interfering with the discretion of the Regional Commissioner in the selection of candidates for it.

Professor Hill: Does my right hon. Friend realise that this lady and her friends feel that a slur is cast in this way on their loyalty, or at any rate their discretion, and can he do anything to relieve that feeling?

Mr. Morrison: There is no slur cast at all. The Regional Commissioner came to the conclusion in the light of their associations, which were neither criminal nor offensive, that it would not be wise to let this lady have this post. The only point is whether I should intervene and require him to appoint her, but I think that would be going too far, and I do not think I ought to do it.

Commander Locker-Lampson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the lady another appointment?

Mr. Morrison: I do not think there is any obligation on me to do anything of the kind.

Miss Eleanor Rathbone: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is merely an instance of a prevalent tendency which is working great injustice and that it casts a slur on the suitability of the Regional Commissioner to deal with appointments? Will the right hon. Gentleman take this serious charge more seriously?

Mr. Morrison: I am taking it perfectly seriously, and I venture to say that putting questions in the House does not improve the situation. It is hardly wise to complain about any reflection if the maximum publicity is invited. There is no reflection on the lady, but this is a highly confidential post, and if the Regional Commissioner in his discretion does not


think it wise, on reflection, to appoint a particular person to the post, I do not think, on reflection and after consideration, that I ought to intervene.

A.R.P. WORKERS (HOLIDAY RAILWAY FARES).

Major Sir Jocelyn Lucas: asked the Home Secretary under what conditions air-raid precautions workers are allowed free railway passes for holidays; whether the grant is retrospective; and whether this privilege will apply to a town, the name of which has been communicated to him?

Mr. H. Morrison: A circular was issued to local authorities at the beginning of July authorising in areas which have suffered heavy air raids, the payment of one third-class return railway fare in a year, without limitation as to length of journey, to whole-time members of the Civil Defence services to enable them to go on holiday. The areas to which this concession applies have been notified by the Regional Commissioners to the authorities concerned. The town mentioned to me by my hon. and gallant Friend is included in the scheme. The provision for the payment of holiday fares became operative as from 1st June last, and the local authorities to whose areas the scheme applies are at liberty to refund the amount expended on travelling by whole-time members of the Civil Defence services who went on holiday on or after 1st June and did not have their holiday fares paid at the time.

FULL-TIME WARDENS, STEPNEY.

Mr. James Hall: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that full time wardens in Stepney are being employed in shops, etc., during their periods of duty; and whether he will have inquiries made into these cases?

Mr. H. Morrison: I understand that proceedings have recently been taken by the Stepney A.R.P. Controller against one whole-time warden who is alleged to have been absent during his hours of duty for the purpose of attending to his own business. The proceedings stand adjourned until to-morrow. Inquiries are being pursued in another case, but the Stepney authorities are satisfied that these cases are quite exceptional.

Mr. Hall: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that efficient supervision is exer-

cised over the wardens' service in Stepney, and does he not think that inquiries ought to be made into the working of that system?

Mr. Morrison: I think that the organisation of Civil Defence in Stepney is much better than it was a year ago.

Mr. Hall: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman.

INTERNEES (CANADA AND AUSTRALIA).

Mr. Silverman: asked the Home Secretary whether, when agreement was reached with the Dominions of Canada and Australia to receive deported aliens, the Dominions were assured that they would be asked to accept only dangerous enemy aliens; whether, as in fact the great majority of those deported were refugees from Nazi or Fascist oppression, he has authorised the release of many such on these grounds; and whether, as agreement was reached on the basis of mistaken facts, he will endeavour to negotiate a new agreement more in accord with the true facts?

Mr. H. Morrison: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. The circumstances in which His Majesty's Government sent to Canada and Australia internees who could not be classed as dangerous enemy aliens were explained to the Governments of these Dominions a year ago. The categories of eligibility for release from internment apply to internees sent to Australia and Canada in like manner as they apply to internees in this country. As regards the numbers whose release I have authorised I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which I gave to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) on 31st July.

Mr. Silverman: Does not my right hon. Friend recall that he himself has repeatedly stated in the House that the Australian Government were assured that the deportees sent there would be dangerous enemy aliens and those alone?

Mr. Morrison: I do not recall that, but if my hon. Friend says I have said it, I accept his word for it. In any case, that has nothing to do with the point, because the facts are as stated in my Answer.

Mr. Silverman: If, in fact, it is the case that my right hon. Friend has said so, we must assume, I suppose, that it is


a fact; and if it is a fact, is it not also true —

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Silverman: On a point of Order. If I am not to be allowed to put my Supplementary Question, I beg to give notice that owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the Reply I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman was not putting a proper Supplementary Question; he was raising an argument.

Mr. Silverman: I was putting a perfectly proper Supplementary Question.

EQUIPMENT AND UNIFORMS.

Mr. Messer: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of the severe financial obligation which will be placed on scheme-making authorities by the operation of the provisions of Circular 157; and whether he will favourably consider the representations which have been made to him that equipment and uniform for Civil Defence workers should be a national charge?

Mr. R. C. Morrison: asked the Home Secretary whether he has any statement to make upon the communication addressed to him by the County Councils' Association, indicating the concern of county councils at the heavy expenditure which will devolve upon local rates, in respect of the issue of battle-dress and equipment to the civil defence personnel; and is he aware that in the county of Middlesex the charge upon the county rate will involve an addition of approximately£83,000, exceeding a Id. rate?

Mr. H. Morrison: The majority of the equipment for Civil Defence services, including anti-gas clothing, is provided at the cost of the Exchequer, but the provision of uniform has always been a matter for the local authorities with the aid of grant, and I can find no sufficient reason for varying this arrangement. A reply is being sent to the County Councils' Association in this sense.

Mr. Messer: Will my right hon. Friend give this more reflection and greater consideration, because it will be a heavy burden on the local rates for what should be a national charge?

Mr. Morrison: I gave this matter careful and full consideration and reflection before I answered the Question, and, indeed, at the time I made the decision. I really think that the financial arrangements with the local authorities are not ungenerous. In the case of uniforms, in which economical administration is so desirable, it is not unreasonable that the authorities should bear the small part of the expenditure we now call upon them to bear.

Sir Reginald Blair: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why, if the Civil Defence personnel are ordered to wear battle dress, they should be placed in any different position from the Armed Forces of the Crown?

Mr. Morrison: Because they are not Armed Forces of the Crown. They are part of the Civil Defence organisation, as to which long negotiations took place with the local authorities. A settlement was reached, and in that settlement uniforms remained a grant-aided service.

Mr. Lipson: Is it not a fact that he who calls the tune should pay the piper?

EXIT PERMITS, NORTHERN IRELAND.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware of difficulties respecting air-raid precautions workers desiring to visit relatives in Northern Ireland; and whether he will arrange that air-raid precautions personnel on leave shall have the same facilities for visiting Northern Ireland as those afforded Service men on leave?

Mr. H. Morrison: Air-raid precautions workers are eligible for the grant of exit permits to enable them to visit their homes in Northern Ireland once in any period of six months, and I regret that I should not feel justified in according them preferential treatment over other classes of civilian war workers, so far as travel between this country and Ireland is concerned.

Mr. Sorensen: Could not the right hon. Gentleman consider extending the facilities for these workers to visit at least near relatives in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Morrison: That Question had better be put down. I was answering the particular point mentioned in the original Question.

Mr. Sorensen: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider extending the facilities for these workers and placing them at least in the same position as members of the Armed Forces?

Mr. Morrison: I have done so, and, as I need not assure my hon. Friend, I am very sympathetic towards their cases; but the soldier goes because he holds a leave pass, and therefore the matter is much simpler in his case. Other circumstances arise in the case of Civil Defence workers, and if I gave this concession, I should find it very difficult to resist concessions to other war workers in the country.

AUXILIARY FIRE SERVICE.

Sir Percy Hurd: asked the Home Secretary whether he will avert the disintegration of fire services in rural areas by arranging for the calling-up of part-time Auxiliary Fire Service men to be deferred until the reorganisation of fire brigade services is completed?

Mr. H. Morrison: In view of the general man-power situation, I would not feel justified in pressing for further deferment of the calling-up of part-time members of the Auxiliary Fire Service who have already registered. The review of the man-power requirements of the Fire Service, including those of rural areas, is, however, being pressed forward as rapidly as possible, and I hope that it will be possible to meet the essential requirements of rural areas by means of part-time personnel in reserved occupations or over military age, supplemented, where necessary, by the posting of additional personnel on a whole-time basis.

REGIONAL COMMISSIONERS.

Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: asked the Home Secretary what extra powers have now been given to Regional Commissioners by the recent circular?

Mr. H. Morrison: As local authorities were informed by the Circular to which my hon. Friend refers, it is proposed to delegate to Regional Commissioners the powers exercisable by a competent authority under the new paragraph (IA) which has been added to Defence Regulation 54B. This paragraph enables a competent authority to give instructions of a specific kind to local authorities. Such instructions may deal, for example, with any of the matters on which a local

authority has to take action after a heavy air raid, and the instructions may require local authorities to take measures which lie outside the scope of their ordinary Civil Defence services.

Mr. Lindsay: Will my right hon. Friend consider putting copies of these more important circulars in the Vote Office?

Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir, I will give consideration to that point in the case of circulars that would be likely to be of interest to hon. Members, if not putting them in the Vote Office depositing them in the Library, so that hon. Members can ask the Department for a copy if they wish to have one.

" DAILY WORKER."

Mr. Gallacher: asked the Home Secretary whether he has considered a resolution from the board of directors of the Methil Co-operative Society, representing over 4,000 members, calling for the lifting of the ban upon the "Daily Worker"; and what reply has been sent to the board?

Mr. H. Morrison: I have received the resolution to which an acknowledgment has been sent.

Mr. Gallacher: I want to ask the Minister whether it is not the case that it is infantile stubbornness and pathetic political prejudice that are preventing the ban being lifted from the "Daily Worker"?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member must not use that language in a Supplementary Question. He would not be allowed to put it on the Order Paper and the same rules apply to Supplementary Questions.

Mr. Kirkwood: Does not the Minister think that the time is now opportune for him to act in a generous fashion in this matter, and withdraw the ban upon the "Daily Worker," because the atmosphere is completely changed since the ban was imposed?

Mr. Speaker: rose—

Mr. Kirkwood: On a point of Order. I have put a question which is relevant to the original Question, and I desire an answer.

Mr. Speaker: I do not think hon. Members realise that there are 128 Questions on the Order Paper to-day.

Mr. Kirkwood: I attend here regularly, and this is the only Supplementary Question which I have put this week, and surely—[Laughter.] The hon. Member would not laugh is he were up against this. He makes the point when it suits him.

Mr. Gallacher: I wish to give notice that, in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall raise this matter throughout the country during the Recess.

FIRE PREVENTION (COMPULSORY ENROLMENT ORDER).

Mr. Lipson: asked the Home Secretary whether he has yet decided to apply the Civil Defence Compulsory Enrolment Order to all urban areas to which the Business Premises Order has been applied; and when will the Order come into effect?

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. Compulsory enrolment will be applied in the case of all local authorities, the whole of whose area has been prescribed under the Fire Prevention (Business Premises) Order; and the necessary measures will be taken as soon as possible.

Mr. Lipson: Is my right hon. Friend able to say when the Order will come into effect?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir. I could not say that, because it is a question of organising the necessary machinery and making preparations, but it will be as soon as I can do it.

INTERNED ALIENS (AGENTS).

Earl Winterton: asked the Home Secretary whether, in order to remove doubts in the public mind, he will make a further statement regarding the extortion by touting agents of exorbitant fees from interned aliens, and indicating that in a proper case it may be advantageous for an alien, if he so desires, to seek the ad vice of a reputable solicitor for the purpose of preparing his application for release from internment?

Mr. H. Morrison: Yes, Sir. The persons to whose activities I referred in my previous statement are mostly what may be conveniently described as touting agents and are neither practising solicitors nor employed by solicitors. I stated that the majority of solicitors are acting quite properly and that, so far as the Home Office is concerned, no objection can be

taken to solicitors acting for aliens in proper cases and charging reasonable fees. The point which I was anxious to make clear is that no preferential treatment is secured from the Home Office by applications made through solicitors or agents over applications made directly by the aliens themselves.

A.R.P. VOLUNTEER, CAMBRIDGE.

Mr. Rhys Davies: asked the Home Secretary whether he has now received the report of the Regional Commissioner on the dismissal of a section leader from the Cambridge air-raid precautions service?

Mr. H. Morrison: No, Sir.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Can my right hon. Friend say when he is likely to receive this report?

Mr. Morrison: I have not asked for a report. I have made inquiries, but I have not asked for a report. The view I took in the House last week was that this was a local dispute which ought to be settled locally. The Regional Commissioner has seen the parties, I believe, and has done what he could in the matter, and I do not think it is a dispute of such a character that it needs the personal intervention of a Minister to settle it.

Mr. Hall: Surely my right hon. Friend will remember that he did say that he would ask the Regional Commissioner to examine this matter, and surely the Regional Commissioner will report to him?

Mr. Morrison: He may or may not; it is not obligatory that he should, because I should think that this is hardly a matter which ought to bother us.

INTERNEES (RATIONS).

Mr. Keeling: asked the Home Secretary how the rations of internees compare with ordinary civilian rations?

Mr. H. Morrison: In no case do internees receive more than the ordinary civilian population. I am sending to my hon. Friend a copy of the dietary scale at present in operation in the camps.

Mr. Keeling: Has the Minister any statistics as to the average loss or gain in weight of internees, as compared with ordinary citizens?

Mr. Morrison: No, Sir.

EVACUATED CHILDREN (BILLETING ACCOUNTS).

Mr. Keeling: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that there is delay in rendering accounts to London parents for their share of the cost of billeting their children removed to the country; that, in one recent case, a mother who had frequently asked for an account was not given one until the contribution demanded had reached£ 10; and whether he will give an assurance that such delays, which cause worry to the parents and losses to the Treasury, will not recur?

The Minister of Health (Mr. Ernest Brown): Recoveries in respect of the cost of billeting of their children are made from parents by the county authority of the area from which they were evacuated. I am not aware of any substantial delay in such recoveries, but I am making inquiries of the London County Council about the case mentioned by my hon. Friend and I will let him know the result as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISON COMMISSION (REPORT).

Mr. Edmund Harvey: asked the Home Secretary why the report of the Prison Commission for 1938 has not yet been published; and when is it to be issued?

Mr. H. Morrison: The report to which my hon. Friend refers was published in December, 1939, but owing to the need for economy in labour and paper it has been decided to suspend further issues of the report, in common with many other Departmental publications, for the period of the war.

Mr. Rhys Davies: Is it not possible to publish a condensed report instead of a full one?

Mr. Morrison: It is not only a question of the amount of paper required, though that, of course, is important, but of the labour available in these very difficult times, when there is a great strain upon our administrative machine.

Mr. Harvey: Does not the report exist in manuscript, and could not a brief summary be issued?

Mr. Morrison: But that would have to be prepared and would mean labour, and I can assure the House that the strain

on the administrative organisation of the Home Office, with all the additional security matters with which it has to deal is very considerable.

Mr. Sorensen: Could not some of the essential figures be put in the annual abstract?

Oral Answers to Questions — BIOLOGICAL CAMOUFLAGE.

Sir John Graham Kerr: asked the Home Secretary how many persons of recognised authority in the principles of; biological camouflage are in Government service and in such official positions as to ensure the maximum advantage from their advice and guidance?

Mr. H. Morrison: It is not clear what persons are intended to be covered fry the words "recognised authority in the principles of biological camouflage" but I am assured that the application of these principles to the various forms of concealment of importance to the various services is limited and is satisfactorily provided for.

Oral Answers to Questions — BUS DRIVER (ARREST).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Home Secretary whether he can give any information in connection with an omnibus driver who was arrested and detained overnight in a West of England prison and brought before the police court, which prevented 30 workmen going to work at a Government factory?

Mr. H. Morrison: I have no knowledge of the case referred to. If my hon. Friend can send me further particulars, I will have inquiry made.

Mr. Thorne: But I think I have lost the newspaper cutting.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

JUVENILE DELINQUENCY.

Mr. Lindsay: asked the President of the Board of Education what action is being taken by his Department with regard to juvenile delinquency among children of school age?

The President of the Board of Education (Mr. Butler): I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of Circular No. 1554, which has been recently issued, and which deals with this subject.

Mr. Lindsay: Does the Minister realise that the main incidence of this so-called crime is above the age of 13, and will he stress the educational, as against the Home Office, aspect of the matter?

Mr. Butler: That point is covered in the joint circular.

Mr. Goldie: Will the Department deal with what is more important, indictable crimes committed by youths between the ages of 17 and 25, with which matter the Home Office does not deal?

GROWING CROPS (ADVICE TO CHILDREN).

Sir John Mellor: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he will arrange for schools in rural districts, and especially schools attended by evacuees from towns, to give instruction upon the importance of respect for growing crops and of closing gates?

Mr. Butler: A leaflet prepared by the Ministry of Agriculture on the prevention of damage to growing crops has just been sent by the Board to local education authorities with a request that they will assist in making its contents known to schoolchildren throughout the country. I am sending my hon. Friend a copy.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING RENTS.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: asked the Minister of Health whether he is now in a position to inform the House of the response by local authorities to his circular letter, dated 12th June, 1941, on the subject of high rents?

Mr. E. Brown: I have not yet received replies from all the local authorities, but the majority of the reports received to date indicate that those local authorities have found no evidence of rent profiteering in their areas. In other areas the local authorities have been successful in securing appropriate rent reductions in the cases which have come to their notice, by representations to the landlords, and in some areas it has been found necessary to institute legal proceedings. I have reminded the local authorities who have not replied of the importance of this matter, and as soon as the majority have replied I shall, as previously promised, review the whole question and make available to the House information on the position.

Mr. Hall: Will the Minister kindly expedite the reports from the local authorities which have not yet sent any in, and will he ask them to keep an eye on the matter, as, in some of these localities, the rent scandal is now growing, and something ought to be done about it?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Member will gather from my answer that I have already done what he asks me to do. I have reminded the local authorities of the urgency of the matter.

Mr. Stokes: Will the Minister also exercise as much pressure as he can upon the Chancellor of the Exchequer, with a view to increase of rent being included in the 100 per cent. Excess Profits Tax?

Oral Answers to Questions — TUBERCULOSIS (WALES).

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Health whether his attention has been called to the report of the Welsh National Memorial Association, indicating a deficiency of 400 beds for waiting tuberculosis cases in the Principality; and what steps are being taken to provide additional accommodation?

Mr. E. Brown: I have seen a Press report that a statement was made at a recent meeting of the Welsh National Memorial Association to the effect indicated by my hon. Friend. The question of increasing the number of beds at present available in Wales and elsewhere is under active consideration in my Department.

Mr. Griffiths: When does the Minister think a decision will be reached, in view of the fact that these 400 cases are awaiting treatment?

Mr. Brown: I must point out that I do not accept responsibility for the accuracy of that figure. I simply say that I am aware that the statement has been made.

Dr. Sxmmerskill: Does the Minister appreciate that while these 400 patients are awaiting admission they are infecting their families?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Lady apparently accepts the figure as accurate. I have seen the statement, but I cannot accept responsibility for the figure.

Mr. Griffiths: Was the figure not stated in the report of a responsible body?

Mr. Brown: Yes, Sir, that is so.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTER OF STATE AND CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY.

Commander Sir Archibald Southby: asked the Prime Minister how many individuals are serving on the staffs of the right hon. Members for St. George's (Mr. Duff Cooper) and Alder-shot (Mr. Lyttelton), respectively; who they are; and what emoluments they are receiving?

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Attlee): The number on the staff of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is two, and of the Minister of State 16. With my hon.

Name.
Rank in Civil Service.
Salary.
Foreign Allowance.




£
£


Mr. A. N. Rucker, C.B., C.B.E 
…
Deputy Secretary, Ministry of Health.
2,200
1,500


Mr. W. L. Matthews, C.B., O.B.E.
Principal Assistant Secretary, Assistance Board.
1,700
1,000


Mr. H. L. d'A. Hopkinson
…
Counsellor, Foreign Office
…
1,150—1,500
800


Mr. H. J. B. Lintott
…
…
Principal, Board of Trade
…
800—1,100
650




plus £250 allowance as Private Secretary to Minister.



Mr. J. S. Bennett
…
…
Principal, Colonial Office
…
800—1,100
400


Mr. C. S. Pickard
…
…
Assistant Principal, Department of Home Security.
275—625 plus allowance £ 175
500


In addition to the above, clerical and typing staff numbering three on the usual scale of remuneration have been sent from this country and granted the appropriate foreign allowances; and seven persons, mainly in clerical and typing grades, have been recruited to the Minister's staff in Egypt.

Sir Irving Albery: asked the Prime Minister whether a statement can now be made concerning the duties overseas of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster?

Mr. Attlee: I would refer my hon. Friend to the announcement which appeared in the Press on 21st July last.

Sir I. Albery: Is it not a fact that the only information given to the House on that occasion was as to who would perform the functions of the Duchy of Lancaster over here, and that no information was given about the duties?

Mr. Attlee: My hon. Friend is mistaken. The statement made was that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was proceeding to the Far East charged with the task of examining, on behalf of the War Cabinet, the present arrangements for consultation and co-ordination

and gallant Friend's permission I will circulate the details in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the statement:

The following is the staff of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster:

Major Robertson, Liaison Officer.

Mr. M. B. P. Russell, Private Secretary.

The remuneration and allowances of these officers have not yet been determined.

The following is the staff of the Minister of State:

between the various British authorities, military, administrative and political, in those regions, and of reporting to them how these arrangements can be made more effective.

Sir A. Southby: Will the Chancellor of the Duchy return from time to time and report to this House?

Mr. Stephen: Does not the Lord Privy Seal think that the important statement referred to should have been made to this House and not to the Press?

Sir A. Southby: Might I have a reply to my Supplementary Question?

Mr. De la Bère: Is not the practice of ignoring the House of Commons becoming more prevalent each day?

Mr. Stephen: May I have an answer to my Supplementary Question?

Mr. Attlee: That matter should have been raised at the time.

Oral Answers to Questions — WAR DAMAGE CONTRIBUTIONS (OLD AGE PENSIONERS).

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that the annual premiums required by the War Damage Act are likely to inflict financial hardship on old age pensioners; and, in view of their scanty means, whether he will ensure that supplementary pensions shall be increased, where and when necessary, to cover the extra charge of the premiums?

Mr. E. Brown: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a similar Question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Daggar) on 5th August. Where a supplementary pensioner is living in a house which he owns, and the premium is a charge which falls on him, the Assistance Board will include it as an "outgoing" in calculating his supplementary pension.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD CHERWELL (STAFF).

Mr. Stokes: asked the Prime Minister whether he consulted the Scientific Advisory Committee before making appointments to the statistical branch presided over by Lord Cherwell?

Mr. Attlee: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister informed the hon. Member in reply to a Question on 30th July last, the statistical branch of which Lord Cherwell is head was formed on the outbreak of war. The Scientific Advisory Committee to which the hon. Member refers was appointed on 3rd October last, and no appointments of scientists to the staff of the statistical branch have been made since that date.

Mr. Stokes: That being so, has the committee any powers of veto over the recommendations?

Mr. Attlee: No advisory committee has a power of veto.

Oral Answers to Questions — INVALIDED SERVICE PERSONNEL (BADGE).

Mr. Graham White: asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the advisability of issuing a badge to members of the Forces who have been discharged during the present war?

Mr. Attlee: An official notice on this subject appeared in the Press on 28th May. The badge is restricted to those invalided from the Naval, Military and Air Forces and the Merchant Navy and Fishing Fleet through wounds or war disablement attributable to service since 3rd September, 1939. Certain difficulties have arisen in the manufacture and supplies have not yet been received.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

WAGES (WOMEN).

Miss Ward: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will give an assurance that wherever wages are raised to the male agricultural worker, women permanently engaged in agriculture will also receive an appropriate increase?

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): Under the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Acts, 1924 and 1940, the responsibility for fixing the minimum rates of wages for workers employed in agriculture rests with the county agricultural wages committees, subject, in the case of regular adult male workers, to conformity with the national minimum wage fixed for such workers by the Agricultural Wages Board. In fixing the minimum rates of wages for other classes of workers, including women, it is the duty of agricultural wages committees to have regard to the national minimum wage for men.

Miss Ward: Will it ever be the intention of the Department to do the right thing by women employed on permanent agricultural work? Is not the Minister aware that the present situation is entirely unsatisfactory and needs remedying?

Mr. Hudson: My information is, taking the country as a whole, that the percentage increase in the wages of women is approximately the same as the percentage increase in the wages of men. The wage increase of men is 28 per cent. and of women 24 per cent.

Mr. Glenvil Hall: Surely the Minister is aware that the wages in both cases are absolutely shocking?

Mr. Messer: Is the Minister not aware that 20 per cent. of £1 is very much less than 20 per cent. of £2?

FEEDING-STUFF RATIONS.

Mr. Price: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in the granting of rations for dairy cows in the coming winter, any consideration will be taken of smallholders under 10 acres whose facilities for growing their own feeding-stuffs are meagre?

Mr. Hudson: Rations for dairy farmers, including the class to which the hon. Member refers, will normally be provided only in respect of milk sold in excess of half-gallon per cow per day. Where the county war agricultural executive committee are satisfied that a farmer has been unable to grow enough feeding-stuffs to provide both for maintenance and for the first half-gallon, they may at their discretion issue full rations in respect of all milk sold. Where, however, farmers cannot provide even maintenance rations for their cows, they will be expected either to make arrangements to buy unrationed feeding-stuffs, such as hay, or to reduce the number of their cows.

Mr. Price: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether farmers who have wheat saleable for milling will be eligible to receive a cereal ration in proportion to their wheat sold, irrespective of the amount of oats and beans which they have also grown on their land?

Mr. Hudson: County war agricultural executive committees will be given an atllotment of coupons to be issued at their discretion to wheat growers who are in need of feeding-stuffs for stock other than dairy cows, whose needs are otherwise provided for.

Mr. Price: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many farmers planted large acreages of wheat last autumn, before they knew that it would be requisitioned for human food, and that therefore in many cases they have not got a sufficient acreage of other crops, and will it be borne in mind that that is the case of a good many farmers?

Mr. Hudson: Wheat is grown for human consumption, and that was made quite clear on numerous occasions last autumn.

ITALIAN PRISONERS OF WAR.

Mr. Price: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether steps will be taken to make available for farm work in this country the large number of Italian

prisoners of war now in various places overseas?

Mr. Hudson: The first 2,000 Italian prisoners of war for employment on the land have now arrived in this country and will shortly be distributed to working camps. Further parties are expected to arrive during the next few months. These prisoners will be employed mainly on ditching, drainage and land reclamation. The total number that can be made available depends of course upon a number of factors which fall outside the scope of my Department.

Mr. Price: Is there any possibility of their being employed individually on the farms?

Mr. Hudson: No, Sir.

PLOUGHED-IN CROPS, WORCESTERSHIRE.

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the instances in Worcestershire of crops being ploughed in because of lack of labour, he will confer with the War Office and the Ministry of Labour with a view to restoring skilled labour from the Home Forces to the land?

Mr. Hudson: I am not aware of any cases where crops have been ploughed in for lack of labour, and I shall be glad to have particulars. As regards the release of skilled labour from the Forces, I would refer my hon. Friend to the replies I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Lipson) on 15th May and to my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Sir Herbert Williams) on 12th June.

Mr. De la Bère: Is my right hon. Friend aware that from the national standpoint it is sheer folly to plough in crops on land which has been ploughed at such great sacrifice by the farmers, and if I give him abundant evidence that it has taken place in Worcestershire, will he really take this matter very seriously?

Mr. Hudson: I shall be very glad to look into it.

SUGAR-BEET (UNSKILLED LABOUR).

Mr. De la Bère: asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he is taking to ensure that the acreage of sugar-beet is not decreased owing to the lack of skilled labour, especially having regard to the


high cost per acre of employing unskilled labour and conscientious objectors, as owing to their lack of knowledge they perform far less work for every I paid than the skilled worker?

Mr. Hudson: I have instructed county war agricultural executive committees that the acreage of sugar-beet to be planted in 194a is to be sufficient to fill the manufacturing capacity of the factories.

RACEHORSE GELDINGS.

Sir Waldron Smithers: asked the Minister of Agriculture how many steeplechase racehorse geldings there are in training; and what quantity of hay and oats it requires to keep them for one year?

Mr. Hudson: Training for steeple-chasing normally starts towards the end of August. Until the Government decides whether steeplechasing is to be continued next winter, I am unable to say how many geldings will be put into training for this form of horse-racing. The second part of the Question does not, therefore, arise.

Sir W. Smithers: Does the Minister not realise that though geldings have to be raced during the winter, the trouble is that they have to be fed and kept now; while fodder for the production of milk and eggs has been rationed and herds have been reduced, is it not criminal that it should be used for these animals?

Mr. Hudson: As I have already pointed out, training for steeplechasing does not start until the end of the month, and a decision as to whether horses should be put in training for steeplechasing has yet to be taken by the Government. The total of oats or other cereals consumed by the geldings would be about 750 tons during the whole season. It is a mere fleabite.

Sir W. Smithers: Is the Minister not aware that that is sufficient to keep alive 12,000 hens?

QUESTONS TO MINISTER.

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper in the name of EARL WINTER-TON:

"59. To ask the Minister of Agriculture whether, in issuing instructions to war agricultural committees for the ploughing campaign for this autumn, he

will consider making specific suggestions for the utilisation of deer parks and commons for the purpose?

60. To ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he is aware that on the small farms of the Weald of Sussex, Surrey and Kent, there is a number of owners and occupiers who were formerly agricultural labourers, many of whom are successful farmers; and whether he will consider introducing legislation to make it possible for agricultural labourers, approved by the war agricultural committees as suitable to take farms, to obtain loans for the purpose, repayable over a number of years, from the State?

Earl Winterton: In view of the number of Questions still on the Order Paper, I shall be glad if my right hon. Friend will circulate the answers to these Questions.

BAD MEAT AND OFFAL (DISPOSAL).

Mr. Thorne: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can give any information in connection with the charge against a man at Wonford petty sessions, Devon, on Tuesday, 29th July, for not burying the carcase of a lamb at Broad-clyst, Devon, on 2nd July; whether he is aware of the danger of burying in the ground bad meat and offal; and whether he will give instructions to have all bad meat and offal burned?

Mr. Hudson: I have ascertained that the prosecution was taken by the police under Section 6 of the Dogs Act, 1906, which makes it an offence to permit the carcase of any cattle, horse, sheep, pig, etc., to remain unburied in any field to which dogs can gain access. The carcase which was found to be lying close to a hedge adjoining the public road must have been there for several days in view of its advanced stage of decomposition, and as other sheep had access to the place where the carcase was found, there would have been considerable risk, had the animal died from an infectious disease. With regard to the second part of the Question, I am advised that, provided burial is carried out in a proper manner and in a suitable place, no danger to animal health will ensue.

Mr. Thorne: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that. it was discovered 60 years ago that it was dangerous to bury


diseased meat, and as a result it was decided to burn it, I myself having burned many tons of it?

PHEASANT SHOOTING.

Sir J. Mellor: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he has decided the dates between which pheasants may be shot?

Mr. Hudson: The matter is under consideration, but no decision has yet been reached.

Sir J. Mellor: Will my right hon. Friend consider allowing a longer season for cocks than for hens, in view of the fact that there is always a surplus of cocks?

Mr. Hudson: I have said that the matter is under consideration.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARMED FORCES AND CIVILIANS (PENSIONS AND GRANTS).

Mr. Jewson: asked the Minister of Pensions why relatives of special constables killed by enemy action receive pensions on a smaller scale than dependants under the war injuries scheme; and whether he will take steps to remedy this injustice?

The Minister of Pensions (Sir Walter Womersley): The anomaly referred to by the hon. Member has already been brought to my notice and I am considering, in conjunction with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, how it can best be removed.

Mr. Lipson: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that ex- Lance-Sergeant D. E. Parberry was passed Al four times when he joined the Territorials in November, 1938, and the colours on 1st September, 1939, in May, 1940, and again in October, 1940, when he passed the strict medical examination for a temporary commission; that he was discharged on 20th March, 1941, because of heart trouble and was refused a pension on 18th July on the ground that his disability is neither directly attributable to his war service nor materially aggravated by it; and whether, as this decision is contrary to a recent undertaking, he will arrange for a pension to be granted to Mr. Parberry?

Sir W. Womersley: I am arranging for a further medical examination of Mr. Parberry, in the light of which his case will be reconsidered.

Mr. Lipson: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether there is any reason why there should be any delay in coming to a decision in the case of a man who has been passed Al four times, and has been released after two years' service as suffering from a weak heart?

Sir W. Womersley: There was no delay. The man will be examined, and a decision will be taken in the light of what happens at the examination.

Mr. Burke: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has given further consideration to the payment of an allowance to all mothers of serving men as a recognition of their sacrifice and contribution to the present war effort?

Sir W. Womersley: I presume the hon. Member is referring to the suggestion of a flat-rate pension for the parents of deceased members of the Armed Forces whose deaths are attributable to war service. The Select Committee of 1921 took the view that to justify the grant of a parent's pension the test of need broadly interpreted should be satisfied. This principle was incorporated in the 1940 Warrant, the provisions of which were fully considered by my Statutory Advisory Committee. I regret that I am not prepared to waive this requirement.

Mr. Burke: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of these mothers receive no grants from the boys while they are alive, and that after they have been killed in action or have died in the service of their country the failure of the Government to recognise even in a small degree the sacrifices which they have made causes very widespread and great bitterness throughout the country, and will he reconsider the matter again?

Sir W. Womersley: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's statement at all. If he had studied this question as carefully as I have, he would not have made that statement. In every case where a parent is in need—and we interpret that very broadly—compensation is granted. This method has enabled me to give far greater compensation to those who really need it than if I had handed over 5s. a week to people who would have had to include it in their Income Tax returns.

Mr. Burke: There is a difference between the attitude of the Government in this war and in the last, and it is causing great dissatisfaction.

Mr. Mathers: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that pensions and allowances to members of His Majesty's forces are not all paid on the same ratio to the cost of living figure in keeping with the undertaking given to this House on 25th June, 1940; and when he intends fully to implement this undertaking?

Sir W. Womersley: The undertaking regarding pensions and allowances to members of His Majesty's Forces to which the hon. Member refers was fully implemented in the Royal Warrant of 29th June, 1940.

Mr. Mathers: Has not the right hon. Gentleman received a complaint from the Scottish Legion to the effect that this undertaking has not been given effect to, and what reply has been made to that charge?

Sir W. Womersley: I have made a very adequate reply, and if my hon. Friend will refer those who have corresponded with him to it, they will find that it is, at any rate, a fair statement of the case. If he wishes, I will let him have a copy of the reply.

Mr. Mathers: When was the reply sent, for I have not understood it to have been received?

Sir W. Womersley: I reply to all communications I receive either from the British Legion or from the Scottish Legion.

Mr. Mathers: But when?

Mr. J. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Pensions whether his attention has been called to the resolution passed by the Welsh National Memorial Association recently, urging him to make provision for men discharged from the Forces suffering from tuberculosis; what provisions exist to provide such treatment; and what further steps he is taking in the matter?

Sir W. Womersley: I have not received a copy of the resolution to which the hon. Member refers. Residential treatment for tuberculosis in ex-service men falls to be provided by the local health authorities under their general tuberculosis scheme

and where such treatment is provided for a man in whose case the need for treatment is due to war service, the local authority concerned is entitled to submit to the Ministry a claim for reimbursement of the cost of the treatment. These arrangements have worked and are working satisfactorily. In Wales the arrangements for residential treatment of ex-service men are made through the Welsh National Memorial Association, and so far as I am aware there has been no difficulty in arranging any residential treatment required by our pensioners.

Mr. Griffiths: Might I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he is aware that in the report of this Association, presented last week, it is indicated that there is a deficiency of 400 beds, and if there is no room for ex-Service men, will he reconsider the position?

Sir W. Womersley: If this Association will inform me of any ex-Service man who cannot find a bed, I will find him one somewhere else.

Mr. Kennedy: asked the Minister of Pensions whether he has considered the petition signed by 550 members of the Kirkcaldy and District Business and Professional Women's Club protesting against the inequality of the Personal Injuries Act, whereby men receive 7s. more compensation per week than women under the Personal Injuries (Civilians) Scheme; and whether there is any likelihood of an early amendment of this inequality?

Sir W. Womersley: I have received the petition in question. For the reasons which I gave in the Debate on 1st May last, His Majesty's Government have not in contemplation any amendment of the Personal Injuries Act on the lines suggested.

Miss Cazalet: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all of the women of England and most of the men are against him on this question?

Sir W. Womersley: I am aware that there is a large number of men and women in this country with me, as my correspondence will show far more letters in favour of what I have said on this matter in this House than against.

Dr. Summerskill: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why a woman's arm or leg is not of the same value as a man's?

Oral Answers to Questions — PRICE STABILISATION AND INDUSTRIAL POLICY.

Major Stourton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the tendency to currency inflation shown by increasing war expenditure, contraction of weekly savings totals, and progressive expansion of the note issue; and whether he will take steps, apart from increased savings by the public, to check the spiral of wages chasing prices by following a policy of rigid price stabilisation coupled with the pegging of wage rates at a reasonable level?

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Kingsley Wood): I cannot accept the implications in the first part of my hon. Friend's Question. As regards the second part, I would refer him to the statement on price stabilisation and industrial policy recently issued by the Government.

Major Stourton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a good deal of public anxiety on this issue, and that there is a feeling that greater efforts should be made by the Government, while there is still time to do so, to prevent further inflation?

Sir K. Wood: I hope that this answer will do something to dispel that anxiety.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL WAR, SAVINGS, AND DEFENCE BONDS (CHANGES).

Sir Patrick Hannon: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amounts have been subscribed to National War Bonds and Savings Bonds, respectively, since the beginning of the financial year?

Sir K. Wood: The amounts raised from 1st April, 1941, to 6th August, 1941, by the issue of National War Bonds and Savings Bonds were £248,345,000 and £180,51:0,000 respectively.
I should like to take this opportunity of saying that I have recently reviewed the terms of the various Government issues now available for subscription and have decided to make the following changes:
I propose at the close of business on 14th August to discontinue the present issue of 2½ per cent. National War Bonds 1946–48, the total of which is now some £400,000,000.

On the other hand, the 3 per cent. Savings Bonds, 1955–65, although they have appealed to a wider public, have not reached a figure of such magnitude, and I intend to continue this issue for the time being without any change of substance, although for technical reasons Bonds issued after 14th August will be designated "A" Series, with a first interest payment due on 15th February, 1942, on which date the "A" Series will be amalgamated with the existing issue. Thus I shall revert until further notice to the earlier practice of relying solely on one market issue.
I have also decided to increase from seven to 10 years the maximum currency of the 3 per cent. Defence Bonds which are available through the Post Office and the Trustee Savings Banks. This change will take effect on 1st September. Other features of the Defence Bonds, such as the 1 per cent. premium payable at maturity and the favourable arrangements as to encashment, will remain unchanged, though for technical reasons the interest dates will be altered from 1st May and 1st November to 1st March and 1st September.
I think it right to continue to give the greatest encouragement to the smallest savings and I, therefore, propose no change in the terms of the National Savings Certificates.

Sir P. Hannon: Is the House to understand from the Chancellor's statement that continued effort will be made to enlarge the investment by the public, particularly the smaller investor, in Government funds?

Sir K. Wood: Certainly.

Sir William Davison: Has the Chancellor considered, as some variety in the form of Government borrowing, the desirability of issuing some kind of premium bond, which a great number of the public would welcome?

Sir K. Wood: I am afraid that there would be a good deal of difference of opinion on that, which might have an adverse effect on the National Savings movement.

Mr. Mander: Is the Chancellor able to give the total for the 3 per cent. Defence Bonds to date?

Sir K. Wood: No, Sir, but I will endeavour to secure it and give it some publicity.

Dr. Russell Thomas: Does the Chancellor say that the rate of sale has reached expectations?

Sir K. Wood: Yes, I think that, on the whole, the response has been satisfactory. It is perfectly true, as regards certain issues, that in the last few weeks the total has been not quite so satisfactory, but there have been good reasons for that— holidays, etc. I think that, on the whole, the effort has been well sustained, but my hope and desire is for a considerable improvement in the next few months.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE (CHAIRMANSHIP).

Mr. Crowder: (by Private Notice) asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether any change is contemplated in the composition of the Railway Executive Committee?

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport (Colonel Llewellin): Yes, Sir. My Noble Friend the Minister of War Transport has accepted with regret the resignation of Sir Ralph Wedgwood, C.B., C.M.G., from the Chairmanship of the Railway Executive Committee, a position which he has held since the formation of the Committee, on the outbreak of the war. I am glad, however, to be able to inform the House that we have been able to secure the services of Sir Alan Anderson, G.B.E., as Chairman of the Railway Executive. He will also hold the new post of Controller of Railways in the Ministry of War Transport. On his new appointment, Sir Alan Anderson has retired from the Board of the London Midland and Scottish Railway Company. Sir James Milne, at present a member of the Railway Executive Committee, has been appointed Deputy Chairman.

Mr. Crowder: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say if the post of Chairman, which has been accepted by Sir Alan Anderson, will carry any salary?

Colonel Llewellin: No, Sir. Formerly that position did carry a salary, but Sir Alan Anderson has expressed his wish to give his services to the country in this

way during the war without taking any salary.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not the case that Sir Alan Anderson has always been connected with shipping? Does he possess the important qualification's required for this job?

Colonel Llewellin: It is quite true that Sir Alan Anderson has had many and varied activities, certainly shipping, and it is because he is a man of this large business experience that we feel ourselves lucky to have secured his services in this post.

Earl Winterton: Does the rule which is rigidly applied to the Civil Service of a retiring age apply in the case of these wartime appointments; and what is Sir Alan Anderson's age?

Colonel Llewellin: I have no idea. [AN HON. MEMBER: "About 70."] Despite that, he is still an extremely active and fit man. After all, our Prime Minister is somewhat of the same age.

Earl Winterton: That does not specifically answer my question. Is there any such rule, or does the age limit apply only to the Civil Service?

Colonel Llewellin: There is no such rule. We appoint the best man so long as he is active and best fitted for the position. We feel that Sir Alan Anderson is so fitted.

Mr. Watkins: Will the change in the Chairmanship of the Railway Executive Committee involve any change in the policy of the Committee, and will they co-ordinate the four railway companies into one unified railway system?

Colonel Llewellin: During the war we at the Ministry of War Transport are in control of the railway companies, and our endeavour, through the Railway Executive Committee and through our new Chairman, who is to be Controller of railways, will be to see that they work together as a whole to give the best service possible to the country.

Mr. Watkins: Does the right hon. and gallant Gentleman know that the four separate undertakings still retain their own individual point of view and maintain it, and that that ought to be removed from railway working, and the whole of the railways co-ordinated into one unified system? Will that be done?

Colonel Llewellin: At present for war purposes they are working together. It is quite true that each staff is operating its own railway. Some railways are operating partly from the districts as well as from London. They are working very well together at the present moment, and, I am certain, will continue to do so and to give the best service possible.

Sir Frank Sanderson: Is the right hon, and gallant Gentleman aware that this appointment will give universal satisfaction throughout the industry?

Mr. Mander: What relation has this appointment to the new Railway Agreement that is being negotiated at the present time?

Colonel Llewellin: The Railway Agreement is a financial matter. This is a matter of operating the railways.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL EXPENDITURE.

Twenty-second Report from the Select Committee brought up, and read; to lie upon the Table, and to be printed. [No. 110.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to—

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, without Amendment.

That they have passed a Bill intituled "An Act to enable the dissolution of Provincial Legislative Assemblies in India and the House of Representatives in Burma to be postponed."

INDIA AND BURMA (POSTPONEMENT OF ELECTIONS) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon the next Sitting Day.

Preamble

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.]

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. James Stuart.]

AGRICULTURE (SCOTLAND).

Mr. Robertson: Last week's Debate on Scottish agriculture was brought to a premature end to permit my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to announce the satisfactory agreement between the Soviet Union and Poland. On the day following, I asked my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal for time to continue the Debate. He indicated that it was open to me to do so on the Motion for the Adjournment to-day. I was sent here to support the Government, and I do so whole-heartedly, because I think they have done, and are doing, great work. If I appear critical, it is because I think I have a good case, which I hope the Government will study, and remedy.
For almost a year I have been concerned about the unhappy situation of the hill sheep farmer. At the request of Peebles and South Midlothian fanners, I have spoken on the matter in the House and have asked several Questions. I have met representatives of the Sheep Breeding Association, and have listened with dismay to their complaints. I have written on a number of occasions to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, to his predecessor, to the President of the Board of Trade when he was Minister of Supply, and to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food. I have been granted interviews with some of these Ministers, at which I stressed the need for increased wool and mutton prices. I presume that other hon. Members have taken similar steps. During this period the half-crown subsidy for breeding ewes has been forthcoming, and in recent months an increase of 2d. a lb. for the 1941 wool clip, and in recent days the promise of an increase of 1d. a pound for mutton. These miserable and paltry concessions are unworthy of the Government, and they are quite inadequate to make hill sheep farming pay. The Secretary of State referred last week to the serious economic plight of the hill sheep farmer, and to the succession of difficult years and low prices. I presume that he was referring to pre-war years. I agree that the hill sheep farmers were

then in a precarious state because of the amount of foreign meat that was imported, which was creating the glutted markets referred to in the recent food debates. That is not the case to-day. On the contrary, there is a great shortage of imported meat. If the hill sheep farmer had the same opportunities as were allowed him in the glutted days of peace, he would be obtaining high prices and all his problems would be solved. It isa sad commentary on our economic policy that farming has had to depend on the profits of war years to make good the losses of peace.
Until a month ago the fishing industry was allowed a free market; and even now, under Ministry of Food control, the producer receives eight times as much for the bulk of his catch as he did before the war. Similar control would yield the sheep farmer 8s. a lb. for mutton, but he only gets is. 2d. He does not want anything like 8s., but I am obliged to draw attention to the different kinds of treatment accorded to two food industries. Mutton is of greater importance than fish. It is the mainstay of the meat ration. Hon. Members will remember that the Prime Minister in the recent Production Debate spoke of the change in the diet of the heavy manual worker and the need for more meat in the heavy industries. The State is the sole buyer of mutton. Prices are fixed by the Ministry of Supply, without negotiation with the farmers. Representations are made by the farmers, but no attention appears to be paid to them. I have here a letter from the Ministry of Supply to the Scottish Farmers' Union. It is dated 18th July, and it says:
The price of wool is fixed in consultation with the Scottish Office, and is fixed in relation to general agricultural policy, and not merely to the selling value of wool.
Hitler himself could hardly do better than that. The farmers are plainly told that the price of wool is not their concern; that they are only the producers; that it is the concern of the bureaucrats in Bradford, the Adelphi and Whitehall. Do we buy our tanks like that? Do we buy Army boots, and say to the manufacturers, "We want your boots, but we are not concerned with your manufacturing costs; we are concerned with agricultural policy in regard to hides, and we are going to give you less than cost"? It is right that prices should be controlled,


and, if necessary, subsidised, to keep them within the reach of the people. In this way, £2,000,000 a week is spent, and the cost is spread over the community as a whole. But it is wrong to fix prices below the cost of production, and to deny the right of negotiating prices before they are fixed.
I will submit evidence conclusively proving that the hill sheep farmer is subsidising the State. The net result of the Government price for wool and mutton in the two years of compulsory control has been serious loss to the farmer; and this, added to pre-war losses, has brought the industry to a state of bankruptcy. The Department of Agriculture for Scotland have investigated the profit and loss accounts of a number of farmers in Scotland. Thirty-six hill sheep farmers in South-East and South-West Scotland were examined for 1938–39 and for 1939–40. The average loss for each of these fanners over the two years is £1,046, or £523 per annum. I have allowed the farmer 4 per cent. interest on his capital. He could get that at least from a combination of investments in debentures, preference shares, and Government securities. I have allowed the farmer and his wife £300 a year in wages, for labour and management. For the privilege of risking his savings and of working long hours in all weathers, producing urgently-required mutton and wool, those hill sheep farmers have been permitted to subsidise the State to the tune of £10 10s. a week each.
In the face of these results, how dare we speak of subsidising the hill farmer? He is doing the subsidising. He is seeing his life savings dwindle and depreciate. By compulsory control the Government is the employer of the sheep farmers, using their capital, their land, their stocks, their skill, their labour; and what do they get in return? A fair wage? No. On the contrary, the Government are taking from them a contribution of ten guineas a week.

ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went; and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. Appropriation Act, 1941.
2. National Health Insurance, Contributory Pensions and Workmen's Compensation Act, 1941.
3. War Damage to Land (Scotland) Act, 1941.
4. Landlord and Tenant (War Damage) (Amendment) Act, 1941.
5. Pharmacy and Medicines Act, 1941.
6. Provisional Orders (Marriages) Confirmation Act, 1941.
7. Cardiff Corporation Act, 1941.
8. East Worcestershire Water Act, 1941.

ADJOURNMENT (SUMMER).

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

AGRICULTURE (SCOTLAND).

Mr. Robertson: I was drawing the attention of the House to the fact that the Government were the compulsory purchasers of wool and mutton and pointing out that they virtually became the employer, but that instead of giving a fair wage to the employee—the hill sheep farmer—they were taking a contribution of 10 guineas per week per farm. The figures are the Government's figures, not mine, and do not include the results of the hill sheep farms in the Highlands, Argyllshire, Inverness-shire, Ross and Cromarty, Sutherland, Orkney and Shetland. I am told that they are in a worse position than the Lowlands. By what authority and by whose authority is the hill sheep farmer compelled to work at a loss? We know that it is not the wish of Parliament or the wish of those whom we represent here. We know that the responsibility lies with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, but I am positive that he is not the instigator of this unworthy policy, and I am sure he disapproves of it. He must bring it to an end, and if he meets opposition, I hope he will take the matter to the War Cabinet. Winding up last week's Debate on the Scottish Estimates, the Undersecretary said:
You cannot give a price for mutton and wool which will be sufficient for the products of the hill-sheep farm without making those prices excessive for other kinds of sheep." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July; col. 1498, Vol. 373.]
I have not heard that any kind of sheep farmer in Scotland was doing as well as


that statement implies, so again taking the latest figures of the Department of Agriculture in Scotland for the years 1938–39 and 1939–40, I found that the trading and profit and loss accounts for 29 sheep rearing farms, sheep rearing and feeding farms and Lowland sheep rearing and feeding farms were examined and revealed that the average loss on each of these farms over the two years was £303, or £151 10s. per annum. I have again allowed the farmer 4 per cent. interest on his capital and £300 for his own and his wife's labour and management. They could earn that by working for an owner management and more if they went into munitions. These figures prove that ho section of the sheep industry in Scotland is in a healthy financial state and that there is no justification for the Under-Secretary's statement. The hill farmer provides the foundation stocks of all sheep. He uses hill land which is unfit for arable. He cannot feed his breeding stock and their lambs until the latter are fat for the market. He must sell to the low ground feeder, who performs an essential service by taking over these surplushill stocks at the autumn sales. The price the feeder can pay must depend on the price he can ultimately realise for the wool and the mutton. These are fixed, by the Government, and is it not futile for the Under-Secretary to say that the trend of prices, as shown by the lamb sales, must be taken into account and that high prices may be created by the scarcity caused by the general death rate in the storms of last winter?
Let me assure my hon. Friend that so long as Government control of mutton and wool prices continues at anything like present levels, there is no possibility of hill farmers receiving prices from feeders or rearers which will compensate them for the appalling losses of ewes and lambs during the last winter. My right hon. Friend must know the gravity of the sheep position in Scotland, that all I have said to-day is true, and that I have not overstated a case which calls for immediate relief. That can only be done by making good the losses which have already occurred, by increasing the basic price for fat mutton by 3d. lb., a premium of 2d. per lb. for all lambs of 35 pounds weight and under, by raising the price of

black-faced wool to 1s. 6d. a lb. and Cheviot to 2s. a lb. Because it is important to the nation's meat supply and, still more, to the nation's good name, I demand that the sheep farmer shall be adequately paid for his produce or released from control.

Mr. McKie: I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson), who has put with such clarity the case for the hill sheep farmer in Scotland. He has made an incursion into higher mathematics in the ingenious way in which he presented his case, and I am afraid I did not come armed with the necessary figures either to affirm or deny his statement that the hill sheep farmer was subsidising the Government instead of the Government subsidising the farmer. But I am certain that had I had an opportunity of looking at the facts and figures which my hon. Friend has given, I should not be placed in the position of denying what he said. This is a very serious matter. My hon. Friend, in his closing remarks, referred to what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said the other day, that lamb sales would no doubt show a remarkable increase in price over the figures which obtained for the corresponding sales last year. On Monday I had an opportunity of attending what is the largest market in the South of Scotland—at Castle Douglas —the occasion being the first lamb sale of the present season. Of course it is true that the numbers shown from the low ground farms were better than those from the rigorous climates of the upper districts will be. The numbers shown were not much below those of the corresponding lamb sales of last year. Indeed, there was a remarkable rise in price, but we must wait a fortnight or so until we have staged the first hill lamb sale when, although there may be a remarkable increase in price as compared with last year, the supply, I make so bold as to say, will show a very startling decrease indeed.
At the sale on Monday I was talking to two or three well-known hill sheep farmers and stock breeders of Southern Scotland. One of them, a personal friend of mine, not only farms extensively for himself, but also manages other big sheep farms, totalling between 50,000 and 60,000 acres, for owners who are not able to look after their farms themselves. This friend told me that he had been in the habit, in past


years, of showing 1,000 head of lambs at the first hill lamb sale at Castle Douglas. He told -me that in a fortnight's time, at Castle Douglas, he will not have one to show from any of the farms, either his own or those of other people; and that in about two or three weeks' time, at Lanark, a very big sale at which in the past he has been accustomed to show some 550 head of lambs at the first sale, he will on this occasion be able to bring forward only some 250 head, rather less than 50 per cent, of the number he has shown in the past.
I also had an opportunity of talking to another friend of mine, who is very much interested and concerned in the sheep trade, and he gave me figures, in connection with hill-farming in the Border counties, in Roxburghshire, where he is trustee of and partly manages a farm— Penchrise, which marches with Lang-burnsheils, owned by the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Colonel Elliot)—which bring out glaringly the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham. With regard to comparisons over a period of years my hon. Friend gave the figures for 1938–39 and 1939–40. This friend of mine told me that a glance at his accounts over the years 1931–39 would show only in 1937 was there a profit of some £500 in a concern in which there is some £14,000 or £15,000 of capital. At that time, I was very much engaged in the hill-sheep farming industry, although I have gone out of it since, not because of the fall in prices but simply because, having a certain amount of low ground farming to do, I was unable to cope with the hill-sheep farm, which was far from my home. As I was in the hill-sheep industry at that time, I can speak with a certain amount of experience when I say I am certain that the figures which my friend gave me are absolutely true.
What is to be done? My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham indicated what he would do both in regard to stabilising and increasing the prices of mutton and lamb and of giving to the producers a reasonable chance of a living wage. Last Autumn, the Government gave to sheep breeders a subsidy of 2s. 6d. per breeding ewe. I think that what I have said, and still more what my hon. Friend has said, will indicate to the Secretary of State that this will not meet

the difficulties of the case. Those who are very much concerned in the industry have told me that if the subsidy were increased to 5s. per breeding ewe, it would do no more than act as a very temporary palliative. With regard to black-faced and Cheviot wool, my hon. Friend has suggested that there should be an increase of 2s. 6d. in the case of the black-faced and 2s. in the case of Cheviot. We are debating this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment, a historic Motion which gives to hon. Members a chance to have grievances redressed. I am not so optimistic as to think that the Secretary of State will be in a position to redress our grievances. I realise that the task is a very difficult one, but I hope he will indicate what it is intended to do by way of palliative measures.
My hon. Friend the Member for Streatham, in his interesting speech, only touched on the broader aspect of the question why the hill-sheep farming industry in Scotland has shown this continuous decline. It is a very old story. Hill-sheep farming in Scotland, as we understand it to-day, dates back only to the year 1800. There are many good judges who take the view that the decline has been largely due to the fact that those who originally went into that part of Scotland worked the land too hard, and proceeded rather on the lines of those who opened up the prairies in the United States and Canada, taking crop after crop from the land without measuring it correspondingly well, and thereby brought about conditions in which the crops that were formerly obtained are no longer obtainable. No doubt there is ground for that opinion. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will encourage those who own and occupy these vast tracts of land to do something to increase the fertility of the soil. Of course, one way to do that is to eradicate the bracken. That is an increasing menace, and one that is very costly to deal with. One remedy that ought to be very seriously considered—and I hope that consideration of it will lead the Secretary of State to put it into operation—;is the bringing back of an increasing number of cattle to the upper pastures. In recent years, an increasing acreage of the hill farms of Scotland has been devoted to afforestation, and this may in some measure relieve


the strain that is placed upon the hill-sheep farming industry inasmuch as it will leave less of this kind of land available.
There is one thing which is seriously perplexing the minds of hill-sheep farmers, as it is the minds of those connected with any branch of agriculture, and that is the question of labour. All branches of the agricultural industry realise that, because of the scarcity and the difficulty of obtaining labour, they are up against a very difficult problem. At the present time, that problem looms very large in the minds of the arable farmers of Scotland, and indeed, of Great Britain, faced as they are with the most bountiful and bumper harvest they have had for many years. I understand that later in the Debate the question of fair wages, which I wholeheartedly support, is to be raised. The Government have control of all our purses. If they determine that the present wage is not enough for agricultural workers, by all means let them increase it, but at the same time, they should realise that if an industry is to pay adequate wages, it must be placed in an efficient position. It is for the Government to guarantee the prices, and then the farmers will gladly and willingly pay that higher wage which for the time being is considered to be a fair and living wage for all who man that ancient and most necessary industry.

Major McCallum: In the interrupted Debate last week on Scottish agriculture, I believe I was the only Highland Member who was lucky enough to catch the eye of the Chair, and I only had that good fortune immediately before my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State wound up the Debate. I count myself therefore very lucky to have the same good fortune again to-day. In replying to the Debate last week, after mentioning one or two subjects which affect Lowland farmers just as much as Highland farmers, the Under-Secretary went on to say:
I should like to turn from the Highlands, which provide us with most of our troubles, to the Lowlands, which provide us with most of our food."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July, 1941; col. 1499. Vol. 373.]
These words, these ill-chosen words, if I may say so, of the Under-Secretary have caused the most profound astonishment in Argyllshire—I cannot speak for other parts

of the Highlands. Quite rightly, my constituency feel that, if these words represent the views of my hon. Friend, as representing the Scottish Office, and if they represent the views of the Department of Agriculture, then there is no wonder that we in the Highlands can get no satisfaction in regard to the various difficulties with which our sheep farmers have to contend. That might have been so a century or two ago, when most of the troubles came from the Highlands and most of the food came from the Lowlands, but to-day we legitimately think that most of our troubles come from St. Andrew House and Whitehall. The fact is that most of the mutton, which Ministers have stressed the necessity of producing, comes from the Highlands of Scotland. I represent a West Highland constituency of 2,000,000 acres, which is the largest mutton-producing country in Scotland, and one of the largest mutton-producing counties in the British Isles. Some two-thirds of Argyllshire are occupied by hill sheep farms, and the farmers naturally resent these views of the Under-Secretary at a time when they have been called upon by broadcast, by requests in this House and by Ministerial statements to do their utmost to produce more and more food. They resent these expressions the more so because they are producing the food at an ever-increasing financial loss to them selves.
While it is true that during Scottish Debates Scottish Members limit themselves to 15 minutes on each subject, the fact is that Highland agriculture hardly gets its fair hearing. In the course of 12 months, except for to-day, they have had only five minutes to put forward their difficulties. We know that the Secretary of State has shown a most sympathetic attitude towards our difficulties in Argyllshire and he does us the honour to come and stay with us and take his holidays in my constituency. We realise that he has thus first-hand experience of these difficulties. While I should like to say, on behalf of the hill sheep farmers, who have been constantly suffering from these difficulties during the past 10 years, that we most gratefully appreciate palliative measures, temporary palliatives, for the industry, it is a long-term policy we require if the industry is to survive and a solution is to be found. It is this inability of the Department to realise that you cannot run a hill sheep farm, or, for


that matter, any other kind of farm, from month to month and that you must plan years ahead, which causes the greatest concern among farmers in my constituency.
The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson) and the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) have raised general issues, but I should like to come down to one or two particular points. As I have said, two-thirds of Argyllshire are given over to hill sheep farming. It is a mountainous county with poor soil. The ground is rocky, with only three or four inches of soil, in many parts and we feel, and the Agricultural Executive Committees feel that the ploughing-up policy is completely wrong. To insist upon ploughing up in North' Argyll an extra acreage of 2,000 last year, and 2,000 this year of poor soil which produces such poor crops is merely a waste of good grazing. Perhaps the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary will reconsider the question of ploughing up these extra acres. I would suggest—and I know this is the view of the Agricultural Executive Committees—that instead of ploughing up this poor soil, the Department should tell the farmers that their soil is better left for grazing. They should tell the farmers to fertilise their grazing—and here, may I say, we find the greatest difficulty in obtaining fertilisers—to make the land better for carrying the stock. I am sure that that would provide a greater return of foodstuffs for the nation; it would certainly be of benefit to the farmers, as against instructing them to produce crops on this poor soil.
There is another point of particular interest to our island sheep farming. Could not some scheme be established to set up grading centres in one or two of the main islands? The sheep which are frequently loaded into ships by ferryboats are often made to jump, or are thrown some six or ten feet from the deck of the ship into another barge or ferryboat to take them to the mainland. For too many sheep are stowed in the ships' holds, and by the time they reach the mainland it is obvious they have lost 50 per cent. of their condition. It is a tremendous hardship for island farmers. In islands, such as Istay and Tnull, which are big centres and which could be reached easily, it would be of great benefit if grading centres could be

established. I know my right hon. Friend will say that if you establish grading centres you must also have slaughtering facilities. My reply is that in the interests of providing good food it is better to provide-slaughtering facilities and grading centres so that the sheep shall be in the best possible condition, than continue the present system.
Another thing from which farmers in the Western Islands suffer is the high charge for freights. That is another burden on the island farmer. How can he compete when he is compelled to sell food at the same controlled price as is paid to the farmer who is within five miles of Glasgow? When the island farmer has to pay these high freights, and let his produce after a sea voyage wait about at the ports, it is quite understandable that some sheep farmers say they will have to go out of business. As the last speaker said, the question of agricultural labour is to be brought forward at a later stage, but I would like to make one or two points in connection with the labour situation as it affects hill sheep farming. I would like to quote the case of a farm belonging to a neighbour of mine. It is an average Highland farm consisting of about 50 acres of arable and 600 to 700 acres of hill grazing, with 400 to 450 sheep and 20 head of cattle. One man and his wife are running that farm, and it is physically impossible for them to run it as it should be run and for the food to be produced which should be produced. It cannot be done without additional labour.
I am not blaming the Ministry of Labour—I know the Employment. Exchanges do what they can to provide labour—but there is not the labour available. Men brought up on the soil of Argyll and of neighbouring counties have been taken away to do work which might easily have been given to townsmen, and now there is not the agricultural labour available to assist on these farms. No doubt I shall be told that agricultural labour is exempt and will not be taken in to the Armed Forces or into munition factories. There was, however, a supply of agricultural casual labour in the Highlands. It was only casual in one sense. As soon as a man left one farm he was taken on another. Yet these men are told that because they are casual labourers they are not exempt. As a result this particular farm has had to get the assistance of a


schoolmaster from Edinburgh. He has worked wonderfully well and done all that he could, but one cannot expect a farm of that description to be worked with casual labour of that sort.
Then we are told that farmers should engage women workers. On big farms in the Lowlands or Central Scotland where 10 men usually work, if three men are taken away, three members of the Women's Land Army can take their places, but in the case of such a farm as I am describing, which is a typical Highland farm, where only one worker is employed, if he is taken away a woman simply cannot properly take his place. I appreciate fully the work which women are doing, and I know estates where they are doing wonderful work, but physically they cannot do this heavy work. Again, we are told to employ military labour. A neighbour of mine at ploughing time applied for military labour and was told by the officer commanding one unit that his men would be delighted to do the work, but the next thing he was told was that soldiers are not allowed to go more, than three miles away from their unit. That means that practically no farmer in the Highlands can benefit from military labour. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will give consideration to the question of how to provide the necessary labour which is urgently required not only on the sheep farms but on every other farm at any rate in the Western Highlands. To revert to the question of women workers, time and again farmers ask for women who are trained milkers and are told that the women sent have been taught to milk. But how are they trained? They are trained to milk with a rubber bag with four teats on it. Surely it should be possible at Auchincruive to provide a few old milk cows so that these women could be taught on the real thing.
The final point I want to make is in connection with cheese production. On several islands in my constituency there has been for years and even for centuries, in addition to sheep fanning, a large cheese-making industry. We are told that there is not enough cheese to provide a proper ration and that it is necessary to allow more cheese to miners and other men doing heavy work. The Island of Coll until fairly recently produced some 48 tons of cheese a year, but the cheese

makers there now have to face not only high freights and transport difficulties— they always had to contend with those difficulties—but in addition have to sell at controlled prices. These farmers are required to transport their cheese from the farms to the pier, from the pier across the water to Glasgow, and then sell at the same price as the man on the mainland who is only a few miles from the wholesaler who buys the cheese.
I would suggest that the Department should ask the Ministry of Food to take over cheese from the makers on these islands and that the Department should pay the freights from the island to the mainland. If this industry could be resuscitated, you would have, not an enormous supply of cheese, but at any rate an increase in the supply which would help. We are told that shiploads of cheese and other kinds of food are coming across the Atlantic. Surely it would be better to increase our home supplies to the very utmost. If you could produce only half a shipload extra, it would minimise the risk to the lives of a certain number of our men.
I cannot help feeling that the Department do not understand sufficiently the difficulties with which we in the Highlands have to contend. One of the great difficulties is lack of personal reconnaissance. We never see a senior official from the Department. I would like with respect to give an invitation to the Under-Secretary himself. If he could come to that part of the country, I would be delighted to welcome him to my home, take him round my constituency at the time of the autumn sales and let him see for himself the conditions under which farmers there are obliged to work. A farmer does not make a living. If he exists, it is the utmost that he can do. I implore both my hon. Friend and the Department to give the utmost consideration and help that can possibly be given in formulating a long-term policy which will ensure the survival of this very important industry.

Major Lloyd(Renfrew, Eastern): I welcome this opportunity of making my contribution to this vitally important subject. I thank and congratulate the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson) on having had the initiative to raise it, more especially as he represents a London constituency. The farmers of Scotland, and the hill-sheep farmers In Peebleshire and elsewhere especially, know very well how


much cause they have to be grateful to him for his energetic services to their cause. We who are deeply interested in this vital problem are genuinely grateful to him for the struggle in which he is taking the lead, and we are pleased to follow and support him in the fight. I make no apology for the fact that I represent a very large urban constituency and am talking on the subject of the hill-sheep farmer. I daresay the number of hill-sheep farmers in my constituency could be counted upon the fingers of my hand. That, of course, is the whole trouble. So few people take an interest in the hill-sheep farming community because they do not represent rates. If they did, the House would be much fuller. That is why I am proud to stand up and support my hon. Friends on their behalf. The trouble is really an economic one. It is the relationship between the selling price and the costs of production. Why should there be one economic law for the farmer and another for the manufacturer? The manufacturer is given his costs of production plus a reasonable margin of profit, and he fixes his selling price accordingly, but the farmer's selling price in many cases has no relation to costs of production. It is fixed for him with regard to what the Government imagine that the consumer is willing to pay.
That is one of the root troubles of the farming community. The prices that the farmer is getting for his primary products, in the way of meat or wool, do not meet his costs, and he is making losses. That is not disputed. We were grateful to the Secretary of State for his obviously sincere and convincing remarks on the Scottish Estimates the other day in sympathising with the lot of the hill sheep farmer. He recognises that this is a very serious problem and that, while there are other problems, they are as nothing compared with the trouble that the hill sheep farmer is going through. His costs are going up. The basic price of mutton was fixed last year. Since then wages have risen steadily. He has had to pay very high wages to his shearers. I am not deploring that. I merely state it as a factor in the cost of production. The cost of dip and of fertilisers and foodstuffs has risen, along with many other factors in the cost of production. Railway charges in connection with the transport of sheep for wintering have risen. There used to be concessions, but they

have now been withdrawn. The grazings are deteriorating because there are not enough cattle on the hills. Now another blow has been inflicted on him, because it looks as if he will not get any more high-grade basic slag. It is most unfortunate that this further nail should be driven into the coffin. Basic slag is a very valuable product for grazing lands which, goodness knows, are poor enough because, for lack of capital, the farmer has not been able to drain them as much as he might have done.
One need not talk about bracken. Everyone knows the trouble that the hill sheep farmer has to contend with through the encroachment of bracken. But there is another trouble from which he is suffering. He has been compelled to plough up some of his land. Much of it is very poor from the point of view of arable, but he was invited in many cases to grow oats. He can grow only a very poor crop, but he did it because he was told to, and, just at the time when he had nicely sown them, the price was reduced, so that his profit on the crop was very small indeed. That was another blow, perhaps not vitally important, but all these things count. Everyone knows what a tremendously bad winter and spring the hill sheep farmers have had through the loss of lambs and ewes. The Secretary of State admitted that many had had a loss of 50 per cent. The real trouble seems to be to define who the genuine hill sheep farmer is. I realise that the problems of some are not so difficult and intolerable as those of others, and that that is one of my right hon. Friend's major difficulties. But the man who has my sympathy more than any other is the man who has little or no arable land at his disposal, who has little or no low ground and practically no other source of income than hill sheep. He is the fellow who is just about ruined to-day. This class is in a very serious state indeed.
Another grievance from which the hill sheep farmer is suffering, among so many others, is that the Government appear to be pinching the skin, the head, the offal, the feet and the various unpleasant entrails vulgarly called "guts" from the sheep that he sells. They get a substantial price for this offal, and the sheep farmer feels that he should have the benefit of it. I do not know what price the Ministry of Food are getting for this


offal, and it would be interesting if the Under-Secretary could give a figure. If he has not got the figure, perhaps he would ask his hon. Friend in the Ministry of Food to let me have it, because the sheep farming community have a feeling that they are being deprived by the Government of something which ought to be theirs when the carcase is sold. One could go on ad lib telling the House of the problems and grievances of the hill sheep farmer, but the facts are not in dispute. This is a seriously depressed industry. It is being ruined and is making very heavy losses. In practically no instance are fanners making profits. It is an intolerable situation which covers an enormous acreage in Scotland. Those who go to Scotland for their summer holidays will enjoy the beauty and loveliness of the scenery and the glens, but perhaps they do not realise while they are enjoying it what a bitter struggle the hill sheep farmer is having to make his living.
What is the solution of this problem? That is, of course, the crux of the difficulty. We all realise that it is not easy of solution. My sympathy goes out to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his attempt to solve it. I know that he is deeply sympathetic and will try and do as much as he can to give some substantial concessions to the hill sheep fanning industry before the autumn months come along. I hope that what has been said to-day will strengthen his hand for fighting the battle with others. He has to fight a battle with others, and if anything we say to-day will strengthen his hand in that battle I am glad. The farming community have officially put up in the form of a memorandum what they are asking for. It is a price solution, for, after all, it is a question of price. They want an increase of 3d. per lb. on the price of mutton and an increase of 2d. on small weight lambs under 35 lbs. in weight. I suggest that that applies to at least 90 per cent. of the black-faced lambs in Scotland. They want the price of black-faced lamb and Cheviot wool increased, the former to 1s. 6d. and the latter to 2s. They want, further, a substantial increase of the subsidy which was given last year of as. 6d. for breeding ewes.
If none of these things can be given, they want some assurance that costs.

which are steadily rising, shall be reduced, for this might have the same effect. They want the costs of their production covered so that they can make even only the barest margin of profit instead of, as at the present time, in almost every case a substantial and ruinous loss. No doubt my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will state in his reply that some concession has recently been given in the form of an extra penny a lb. in the price of mutton, but that will come into effect gradually and they will not get the full effect of it until about 10th November this year. That will not be a very effective help to the average hill farmer. It will certainly be of practically no direct help to the black-faced sheep farmer because his crop of lambs will have been sold before that price is able to affect him. The penny will mostly affect the wintering people and those who are selling a rather different type of sheep on lowland ground. The black-faced sheep fanner will not get much benefit.
There are those who say that the hill sheep farmer is "grousing" unnecessarily because the price of lambs is going up and there will be a big boom in prices and that, therefore, he will do very well in the long run. Because the other day at St. Boswell's and elsewhere some of the heavier lambs got a substantially higher price, there are some people, who do not understand farming, who may draw wrong conclusions. They say that these higher prices will be universal and that they are a sign of the prosperity of the industry. That is a short-sighted and ignorant view to take, because the fact that prices rose and may continue to rise and be maintained at a high level is not a sign necessarily of the prosperity of the industry. It is a sign of the needs of the industry, of the parlous condition in which it is, of the shortage of supplies and of the death of the lamb crops that took place in the winter and spring. It is a poor contribution for any Government Department to make to say that because lamb prices may rise this year the hill sheep farming industry needs no material assistance and is in a state of prosperity. Let us get back to the proper economic basis. Why should the hill sheep farmer be on a different economic basis from any other industry? Unless Government Departments recognise the fact that the basis should be a cost of production plus a reasonable


margin of profit, we shall not get anything better done for this much afflicted and distressed industry.

Mr. Mathers: I rise for the purpose of demonstrating to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that there is support in this quarter of the House for the plea that is being made. The problem, as I see it, is a double one. With one part of it my right hon. Friend is unable to deal. It is a problem of maternity and child welfare. I refer to the heavy death rate that was incurred by natural causes during the storms and severe weather in the early part of this year. Hill sheep farmers particularly were subject to staggeringly heavy losses in their flocks. Ewes died off under those conditions to a very serious extent indeed and there were repercussions upon the productivity of the ewes that did remain alive, and after the lambs were born many of them died. But the other side of the problem is one that does come within the powers of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and those who have to share with him the responsibility of making the economic decisions upon which a solution, or an alleviation at least, of this problem depends.
The hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Robertson) has spoken, and may I say that I have been very pleased indeed to find that the case has been put so well by all those who have taken part in the Debate. I am not posing as an expert in this matter, but I think the case has been put in a very admirable way, and while forcefully expressed has been put in a reasonable manner. The hon. Member for Streatham said that the position of the hill sheep farmer, who breeds the sheep, is reflected in the price ultimately obtained for those sheep. My comment upon that observation is to say that I do not think that we must look upon it as an inevitable process that the price obtained ultimately for the sheep does necessarily seep through to the hill sheep farmer. It is true that the ultimate price of the sheep does give a calculable basis for the hill sheep farmer, but it is not inevitable, in my judgment, that that price should in all cases reflect the position of the hill sheep farmer who parts with the sheep before they go into the market, where the final price is obtained by the sheep feeder. I am not going to attempt to put a concrete solution of this problem to my right hon.

Friend, but I will say that here is another instance of the necessity for dealing with a very important part of a Scottish industry by exceptional means. I can assure my right hon. Friend, and I think it is a compliment to him, that he is looked upon in all quarters of Scotland as a Minister who is ready and willing to take exceptional measures when they are called for. We recognise that perhaps he is not alone concerned in making the necessary decisions which will be involved in solving this particular problem, but I want to assure him that he will have wholehearted backing in this House for any step that he can work out and complete backing in striving for a solution of this problem.
This is an important industry. It is an industry that has met very hard times in recent years. It is important but it is dwindling. I think it is very regrettable indeed that there should be the falling off in hill sheep farming in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland that we have seen during recent years. I was told recently that not many years ago in the island of Jura there were 200,000 head of sheep, and that to-day the number is somewhere in the region of 11,000 or 12,000 breeding ewes. That is an indication of the way in which this industry has declined. I remember my right hon. Friend saying on one occasion that when we are out of the war and have an opportunity of going forward with things in the realm of peace he hoped we should not be succeeding to a graveyard or a cemetery, but succeeding to a going concern. I think to-day we are faced with a problem of that kind and we are asking my right hon. Friend—and I am leaving it with him—to work out what the solution shall be. But I am asking him: very earnestly to meet the needs of this important and vital section of Scottish agriculture by doing whatever he can and doing it quickly and effectively.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Wedderburn): I am very glad that those of my hon. Friends who were prevented by the statement on the Russo-Polish Treaty from putting forward the views of Scottish agriculture during the Debate last week have now been given the opportunity of doing so. In our Debate last week it was not possible, within the rules of Order, to say very


much about prices, but in the Debate on the Adjournment to-day my hon. Friends have had the advantage that they have been able, with greater freedom, to discuss the prices which ought to be paid for various agricultural products. The responsibility for those prices is, of course, a collective responsibility of the Government as a whole, and the Scottish Office must have its proper share in the responsibility for the prices that are fixed. As has been mentioned, my right hon Friend the Secretary of State has always been very much alive to the severe difficulties of the hill sheep farming industry in Scotland, and I think it is well known how deep is his sympathy for those engaged in that industry in their present plight.
My hon. Friend the Member for Streat-ham (Mr. Robertson) raised not only the subject of hill sheep fanning but the whole question of mutton and wool prices, and it is therefore necessary for me, in the first place, to ask the House to distinguish between the type of farming which is carried on by the hill sheep farmer and that which is pursued by the Lowland farmer who feeds the sheep and sends them to the fat stock market. The Highland farmer can, as a rule, fatten very few and perhaps no sheep. He gets his return by selling store lambs and cast ewes, and of those two items the store lambs are, as a rule, the more important. The Lowland farmer, on the other hand, carries out the business of fattening sheep and bringing them into a fit condition for market, and he may carry out that process in two or three different ways. He may have his own flock of breeding ewes, and fatten lambs of his own breeding. He may buy from the Highlands every year a number of old ewes which are getting too old for the high ground but are still good for one more year of maternity and child welfare in the more grateful conditions of the Lowland climate. He may take one crop of lambs from these ewes and fatten them in the next winter. Or he may simply buy store lambs from the hill farmers and fatten them. He may combine all three processes at once, as I do myself. I have some breeding ewes; I sometimes buy black-faced ewes in the autumn from the Highland farmers and I sometimes buy store lambs.
The first question I am called upon to answer is in the proposal made by my

hon. Friend the Member for Streatham. I want to separate the problems facing the hill farmers from those of the arable farmers. I think my hon. Friend proposed to raise the price of mutton by 3d. per 1b. and also the price of wool, on the ground that these large additions to the present prices would benefit directly or indirectly the hill sheep farmers. But they would also add enormously to the rewards earned by the lowland feeder of sheep. He referred to the statement which I made in the Debate last week, when I said:
You cannot give a price for mutton and wool which will be sufficient for the products of the hill-sheep farm without making those prices excessive for other kinds of sheep.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July, 1941; col. 1498, Vol. 373.]
I would remind my hon. Friend that only about one-third of the sheep in Great Britain and about half the sheep in Scotland are hill sheep. The greater number of breeding ewes are not hill sheep at all. If you wish to increase prices you have to bear in mind what the effect will be on the profits of the Lowland farmers, who have, on the whole, twice as many sheep as have the hill farmers.

Mr. Robertson: The hon. Gentleman cannot fully have understood by observations. I took the accounts of his own Department for hill sheep farms, and I showed, and I thought I had proved conclusively, that during the period of Government control there had been an average loss of £523. On the other hand, again taking the accounts of his own Department, the other type of farm to which he is referring, the sheep feeder and rearer on the low ground, were losing —151 10s. per farm during the two years of Government control. The hon. Gentleman is wrong in suggesting that any section of sheep farming is making money and that no section is losing. My submission is that they are both losing; and if, by any chance, some of the farms make some profit, is it not the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look after them?

Mr. Wedderburn: I accept what my hon. Friend says about the profits of hill sheep farming but I cannot accept the statement that the Lowland farmer, who has twice as many sheep, is losing money


at all. I do not want to weary the House with figures, but 1 have a number of accounts here of various mixed farms in Fife with a large number of sheep. They show that one of them last year made a profit on sheep alone of £398 upon 396 crossed lambs, and another £288 on 444 crossed lambs.

Mr. Robertson: Was there a wage allowed to the farmer?

Mr. Wedderburn: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Robertson: And interest on capital?

Mr. Wedderburn: The House no doubt remembers that the present prices were arrived at about a year ago and represented an increase of 2d. on the prices of 1940 and 4d. on the pre-war price. At that time, the Government decided to pay £34,000,000 in raising agricultural prices, and the whole price structure was carefully worked out. It has not since been altered much. Agricultural prices are however constantly being kept under review. No one could foresee what circumstances in the future might justify any rise in those prices. I do not wish to encroach upon the subject which, I understand, is likely to be raised next, but obviously if we decided to raise the minimum agricultural wage it would constitute a case for a review of the whole price structure. I have now to decide, upon the presents costs, which have, I agree, shown a tendency in some directions to rise, whether there is a good case for raising the prevailing price of mutton from is. 2d. to a higher figure. I must reply that, on the present basis of costs, I do not think a case has been made out for increasing the price of mutton. It was decided last year to deal with the hill sheep farmer by way of a special subsidy and I thought I had expressed the situation concisely in the phrase which my hon. Friend quoted.
The plight of the hill sheep farmer is the main subject of this discussion, and before I go on to deal with that problem I should like to deal with one or two subsidiary points which were put to me by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Argyll (Major McCallum). He stated that the 1942 ploughing-up campaign suggested by my Department was excessive. That is a matter which we are now discussing with the chairman of the execu-

tive committees. I shall meet next week those in the South-West and South-East of Scotland, including those from Argyll. I can certainly tell my hon. and gallant Friend that the last thing we want to see done is unsuitable land ploughed up. The question as to how much land should be ploughed up will be decided by the local agricultural committees, and in making their decision they must have regard to the ultimate object—producing the greatest possible amount of human food. They know that that object will not be attained by ploughing up unsuitable land. My hon. Friend has suggested that instead of being asked to plough their land, farmers should be asked to put fertilisers on it and improve the quality of the grazing. Of course they can—and I hope they will—be required to do that in any case. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eastern Renfrew (Major Lloyd) again put a question, which I think I answered last week, about high-grade slag. I cannot add anything to what I then said. I said that we were hoping to arrange for the supply of high-grade slag to Scotland, and I pointed out that it is a question of transport. We must remember the difficulties which our transport system has to bear and try to arrive at the best solution in the public interest.

Major Lloyd: It is not a matter of transport between England and Scotland, and I do not quite see that transport matters.

Mr. Wedderburn: It does matter a great deal. The lower grades go by sea, whereas the high-grade slag has to go by rail, and there is a most tremendous strain on our rail transport.

Major Lloyd: Steamer freights are higher than rail freights.

Mr. Wedderburn: I am hoping very much that we shall be able to bring about the necessary arrangements for this high-grade slag to be supplied to Scotland again.

Major McCallum: Will the hon. Gentleman assure us that the advice of the agricultural executive committees will be taken, because my information is that it is not taken?

Mr. Wedderburn: I really do not understand my hon. and gallant Friend. It is the agricultural committees which say


which field shall or shall not be ploughed up. All the Department does is to suggest to the agricultural committees what the quota for their district should be. We certainly do not wish to compel the committees to require land to be ploughed up which they decide is unsuitable.

Major McCallum: I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me if I insist on this point, but I have received a very definite assertion that the agricultural executive committees have advised that only 25 per cent. of the 2,000 acres could be ploughed up, but that the Department insists that they should find the whole 2,000.

Mr. Wedderburn: That is no doubt a matter which will be discussed between myself and the chairmen of the agricultural committees when I meet them next week. My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) suggested, I think rightly, that the history of the decline of hill sheep farming in this country goes a very long way back. I think it is true to say that for the last 150 years high-land grazing in Scotland has been gradually and progressively exhausted. It has not been possible to put fertilisers back into the land, and in more recent times the process of decay has been accelerated by the decline of hill cattle, which has also been a contributory factor to the spread of bracken. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Eastern Renfrew and others have all asked for a long-term policy. I cannot say what the post-war policy of whatever Government may be in power at the end of the war will be, but I certainly hope that we shall have a Government which will seriously have the intention of establishing a higher standard of agriculture in the Highlands. I can only tell the House now, as I did last week, of two long-term measures which have been taken this year in the hope of assisting the hill sheep farmer. One is the subsidy for cutting bracken—the payment of half the cost—and the other the subsidy of £2 on breeding cows of Highland or Galloway breeds or first crosses of these breeds with a Shorthorn bull which are kept on the hills. I will not repeat the figures of the numbers of applications received under those two subsidies, because I have already given them.
We all recognise that the hill sheep farmer himself is in a most unfortunate

condition; not only has he had a hard struggle for many years to make ends meet, but this year he has also had the exceptional misfortune of unusually severe weather, which has resulted in some cases in the loss of 50 per cent. or even more of his stock. My hon. Friends will be aware that last week the Secretary of State received a deputation on this subject in Edinburgh, and he is fully conversant with all the relevant facts of the case. The House will not expect me to try and give details of the subsidy to be granted. The appropriate amount of subsidy will, as was explained last week, be settled with the Treasury, account being taken of various factors of which one will be the price prevailing at the autumn lamb sales. As I pointed out last week, the high price which seems likely to prevail at the lamb sales is due to the fact that so many ewes and lambs were killed by the severe weather last winter. It does not therefore follow that because the hill fanner is receiving this high price he is doing better. On the contrary, he is really doing much worse, and is getting this higher price for probably only about half the number of store lambs which he was able to offer last year. The higher prices do not indicate that the situation is better for the hill sheep farmer. They indicate rather that the situation is worse.

Mr. Robertson: The determining factor at all lamb sales must be the price which can ultimately be obtained from the sale of wool and mutton.

Mr. Wedderburn: I do not think that that is the only determining factor. It is a difficult economic question to what extent the buyer of store lambs passes on the value of what he is going to get to the breeder from whom he buys the stores. It probably depends a good deal on the numbers offered for sale. This year, owing to the scarcity of hill sheep on the store markets, I should expect that most of the benefit of any higher prices would go to the hill sheep farmer. But the winter increase in price of 1d., which has been referred to, is not strictly relevant to this subject, because the justification for it is that the Government desire a greater use of sheep in maintaining the fertility of our land. We recognise that it is not going to be of great assistance to the seller of blackfaced lambs. The object is to get more sheep fed on turnips.


in the Lowlands. The House will not expect me to give any indication of what I think this hill sheep subsidy ought to be. All I can say is that I am very glad my hon. Friends have had an opportunity of raising the matter, with much greater freedom than if they had done it last week. It is a good thing that these matters, which are of such importance to a great section of our people, to a very important industry, should be debated as frequently as possible in the House of Commons. I am glad that hot only my hon. Friends behind me, who are concerned with the areas which are affected, but also my hon. Friend opposite, who sits mainly for an industrial part of Scotland, should have spoken on this subject.

Mr. Robertson: I very much regret to say that I find the statement of the Undersecretary far from reassuring, and it is my intention to raise this matter on the resumption after the Recess.

AGRICULTURE (WAGES).

Mr. T. Smith: We have devoted a great deal of time to the Scottish section of the agricultural industry. I now want to call attention to the position in agriculture with regard to wages. The Minister of Agriculture, in his very able review a few days ago, said that the nation should be grateful to the four partners in agriculture for a very wonderful harvest, the four partners being the war agricultural committees, the landowners, the farmers, and the workers. We are extremely grateful to all those partners, but I wish that gratitude to the workers could take the form of more consideration for their wages and conditions. Then our Prime Minister, in that graphic way of his, when reviewing the situation a few days ago, said:
We have ploughed the land, and, by the grace of God, have been granted the greatest harvest within living memory, perhaps the greatest ever known.
If I may say so, without any disrespect, it is wonderful what the Almighty can do when He is given a little help. That wonderful harvest has been obtained, not merely by the grace of God, but by the work of those in the industry, which includes the farm workers. In this House the agricultural workers have no direct representatives. For years a few of us have taken an interest in agricultural questions, and have felt it our duty to

do what we could for the men and women of the countryside. We have attempted in more ways than one to get better treatment for them. On 3rd April, 1940, when my right hon. Friend's predecessor, Sir Reginald Dorman-Smith, moved the Second Reading of the Agricultural Wages (Amendment) Bill, he said that there were a number of reasons why the Bill was necessary. He said that no one would deny that agriculture demanded of those who served our soil a very high degree of skill, and, indeed, of energy and patience, but that the industry was losing far too many skilled men to munition works of one kind or another, where wages were far higher than on the land. He then went on to point out that one of the major objects of that Bill was to reduce the gap between wages in ordinary industry and wages in agriculture. There was more slobbering over conditions in the countryside on 3rd April, 1940, than I have ever heard, in a good many years' experience in this House. From all sides, statements were made as to the importance of the agricultural worker, as to his high degree of skill, as to his patriotism, as to the necessity of retaining him on the land. The Bill went through without a single dissentient voice. We thought—at least, I did—that at long last there was a recognition in this House of the value of the agricultural worker to the country.
Agriculture is the first and most important industry in the world. Men can live longer without coal than without food. It matters not how that food is served up, whether in the big hotels in the West End or in the humblest cottage, or by whatever name you call it when it is cooked; that stuff has to come from the land. It is amazing that in the most important industry there are the lowest rate of wages and the worst general conditions. I have been through six or eight counties in the past six weeks, dealing with the question of the application for a £3 a week minimum, and I have pointed out at all the conferences and meetings that it was not a question of threatening a strike, that their job was to do their 100 per cent. best, along with people in other industries, in order to win the war as quickly as possible. But the men and women working on the land have a right to more justice. When 48s. was fixed, 12 months ago, while some of us thought


it too low, it was an improvement. In regard to agricultural wages, we started this war differently from the way in which we started the last.
As a matter of fact, in the last war, the Norfolk farm workers had to have a strike. In April, 1915, as a result of that strike, there was perhaps the first farm strike conference to take place in that county. It succeeded in lifting the minimum wage to the magnificent sum of 18s. a week. When we got 48s. it was certainly an improvement, although many of us contended that it was not high enough. Some time has elapsed since it was given, and the cost of living has gone up by 20 points, which, according to one professor, is equal to about 3s. 2d. in the £. Organised agricultural workers applied, in these changed conditions, for a revision of that national minimum wage and applied for the magnificent sum of £3 as against 48s. There is not an hon. Member who will say that £3 a week is too high. Indeed, if we are to have a prosperous agriculture after this war, we shall have to get down to removing this rural differentiation—to raising conditions in the countryside nearer conditions on the industrial side. When they applied for this increase they were not asking for anything extravagant.
The progress of this application is, to me, interesting. There have been five meetings, and finally, at the fifth meeting, it was decided to postpone consideration of the application to 3rd November. They ought to have made the date 5th November. I say to my right hon. Friend that there is not another trade union in the country which would have been treated as the agricultural workers have been treated in this application. At the first meeting, the farmers asked the workers to state their case, quite a reasonable thing to do. At the second meeting the farmers reported that they had asked for a meeting with the Minister and that he had refused to meet them. Will the Minister tell the House and the country why? I cannot imagine the Mines Department or the Board of Trade refusing to meet the Miners' Federation of Great Britain. I cannot imagine the transport workers or the General Workers Union being refused in such a way by any other Ministry. The farmers came back and said that the Minister refused to meet

them. At the third meeting the appointed members stated that it was necessary for them to obtain a ruling from the Minister on certain points, such as what was meant by the economic position of the industry, and to obtain information as to production, prices, etc. When they met again the appointed members said the information was not available. It is rather curious that the statement of the Minister to the appointed members should be almost word for word the statement given by the appointed members as to why they should defer consideration of the application until 3rd November. The organised workers believe that the delay is largely due to the influence brought about by my right hon. Friend. They believe that. If he can remove it, all the better. The facts point in that direction.
What is meant by the economic position of the industry? The Act of 1940 contains a statement that the Board must consider not only the general economic position but also the economic position of the agricultural industry. Are the Minister and the Ministry so barren in information that they have not sufficient in order to estimate what it would cost to concede £3 per week? That is quite different from what the Minister said 12 months ago, when he went round the country meeting county agricultural committees. May I remind him what he said? When he met them in Northampton shire on 1st July, 1940, he was asked by Mr. Weston to deal with the money side. The Minister said that the whole question of finance had been gone into most carefully, and certain figures had been supplied by the banks which he could not divulge because they were confidential, but he was satisfied that nationally the position was not as difficult as it had been. The question of the increase in the wages had also been taken into careful account. It was found that they represented £16,000,000 in a full year, but it should be remembered that the farmer would get his increased prices on the harvest of 1940 and that he would pay increased wages for only a quarter of that period, namely, £4,000,000. If they took the figures for a full year and made allowances for the increase in wages and overheads amounting to £10,000,000, that would only give an estimated increase of £26,000,000 as against an increase in prices of £35,000,000. So the net result was that farmers got £9,000,000 extra over the


£16,000,000 for wages and the £10,000,000 allowed for ordinary overheads.
I ask my right hon. Friend if it is not possible to estimate the cost of conceding this application without so much delay. Does my right hon. Friend want the House to believe that he and his Department are so ignorant of agricultural statistics that they cannot get out sufficient to supply the necessary information? Frankly, I do not believe it. If he can disprove it, all the better. It is the historic argument through the pages of history. We have always had that old argument, sympathy by the bucketful, but "We are afraid we cannot concede this because the industry cannot afford it." I recognise as well as anyone that it is house putting a wage demand, or conceding it, if an industry cannot pay it, and that while it is perfectly true that a good many farmers are making more than they made some years before, it is also true that there are farmers who are not making money. Some of the small farmers, some tenant farmers, and small owner-occupier farmers, deserve a good deal of consideration. I believe that the farmer should receive sufficient for his product to enable him to pay all his overheads—seeds, fertilisers, etc. —and to pay a decent wage to the worker. My point is that if this extra demand for 12s. a week increase were conceded, it would cost inside £10,000,000. If the industry or the prices of agricultural products are not sufficient to pay it, then the farmers have just as much right as mine owners to ask for an adjustment of the prices.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams), in a speech on 3rd April, said that every produce of farming, except watercress, had a guaranteed price and market. Is there any connection between the delay in dealing with this application and the White Paper issued by the Government on prices and wage stabilisation? In that White Paper there is a paragraph which says there may have to be adjustments for low-paid grades. If we are to stabilise wages and prices, for heaven's sake do not start with the lowest-paid section of industry. There may be a misunderstanding on this point, but I hope there is no connection between this White Paper and this delayed action in agriculture. If that is

to be discussed, it must be discussed generally and not from the point of view of the lowest-paid worker.
As sincerely as I can, I want to ask the Minister to do one or two things. 1 do not want to attack the Wages Board, because they are perfectly within their legal rights in deferring the matter, but we have the right, in this House, of exercising some control over what they do and to use our influence on the Minister to do what we think is right. I know it is not the Minister's job to fix rates, but he can use his influence, and I want to ask him whether he will see the chairman of the Board, tell him about the dissatisfaction felt in this House and in the country at this delay, and whether he will endeavour to get the Board to meet again as quickly as possible to deal with the matter. If we refuse to pay the agricultural labourer fairly for his skill, do not let us keep him as a slave to agriculture. He does not come under the Essential Work Order or have a guaranteed week; he is debarred from leaving the land to go to other industries. He is tied down to 48s. a week, with the exception of 10 or 11 districts where there are variations up to 54s. a week. We have no right to tie him down without some compensation; therefore, if we do not pay him what is reasonable, let him take his place in the competitive labour market. If you go to parts of the country where aerodromes are being built, you will see these labourers in a field, and just over the other side of the hedgemen, whose work is no more important than agriculture, who are earning 50 or 60 per cent. higher wages than the agricultural labourer. [HON. MEMBERS: "100 per cent!"] Well, I like to be modest. Agricultural labourers work in rather isolated groups of four or five. They cannot organise mass meetings and tell the manager where to get off the next meeting morning, such as is done in other industries. They are badly organised; if they were properly organised to-day, they could remove every differentiation in a few weeks.
I have been among these agricultural labourers. I have joked with them, played darts with them and "pulled their legs," and I have found them among the best in any country—and I have been in 10 or a dozen countries. They are not being fairly treated. Do not imagine that


it is cheaper to live in the country than in a town. Try it yourselves. I went to a village "pub" recently and one of my companions ordered a glass of beer, which was brought in not quite full to the top. He was told, "There's as much as you can drink there, mate," and there was when he tasted it. The farm worker's wife has to buy in small quantities and consequently pays dear. When she has to go to town for supplies, she has to pay bus fares. I could show you letters from farm workers who have pleaded for reconsideration of this matter. Some of them have worked 100 hours during each of the last two or three weeks and I say, Either pay them or liberate them and give them a fair chance to go to other industries where they can earn higher wages.
Before we go away for our holidays may eve be told that these men and women of the countryside will be treated in a better fashion? Let us look at a statement made by the Minister of Labour a few weeks ago, when he said:
I feel it my duty to establish such conditions of employment as will create a sense of justice, remove grievances and prevent disputes.
Is it too much to ask that the sentiments contained in that statement shall be applied to the agricultural workers of the country? Incidentally, many Members have asked me to say that wherever there is an increase of wages there should be a proportionate increase for women. I am told that in Norfolk there is to be nothing extra for women. I also want the Minister to look into the question of the amounts paid for child labour on the land. I am told that in the Isle of Wight 3d. an hour is being paid to school children. We cannot go into this question now, but it is, nevertheless, a scandal. In conclusion, I would repeat my plea to the Minister to use his influence in order to get the Wages Board to meet again and expedite a fairer settlement of this application for an increase in wages for the agricultural worker.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) deserves recognition for his public spirit in raising this matter to-day and in drawing attention to the unfair, and I think serious, position that arises out of the low standard of wages paid to the farm workers of this

country at the present time. He has for long held the admiration of the House for the work he has done on behalf of farm workers. I recall that two years ago he made a proposal to stabilise the agricultural worker's wage at a minimum of £2 per week. That was regarded in official circles at that time as an almost revolutionary figure, and I am glad to recall that I was one of those, a mere handful on this side, who, despite an overwhelming majority against us, spoke and voted with my hon. Friend. I will not attempt to embellish the tribute he paid to the skill, knowledge and industry of agricultural workers. The House and country recognise the unique part which these men play in the nation's life. Rather would I prefer to examine the cause of their discontent at the present time, to consider their case in relation to the war effort and the Government's policy on wages as a whole; and point out the dangers that will inevitably arise if a bold, comprehensive and coherent national wages plan is not quickly put into effect by the War Cabinet.
For the essence of the ploughman's complaint is the conditions obtaining not within his farm, but outside it. His dispute is not with his employer, but with the State, and for that reason there never was a more appropriate case to bring before the House of Commons. I hope that before the Debate is over we shall have stated the case with complete frankness and with that breadth of vision which it deserves.
What is the farm worker's complaint? I can give the answer in two sentences. It is demonstrated before my eyes every morning when I come to the House and every evening when I return. On the farm in Surrey on which my home is situated, in the fields that I see when I open my eyes in the morning, two groups of men are now working. One group, the farm hands, highly skilled, highly experienced, hard-working men, who have spent the whole of their lives learning a very difficult job, are earning from 48s. to 55s. a week. The other group, unskilled men, labourers, drawn from all walks of life, many of them having little or no experience in the job they are doing, are digging holes in the ground and erecting anti-aircraft poles. These men are drawing from £5 to £5 7s. 6d. a week. Let hon. Members observe this is a difference, not of a few shillings, but of nearly


60s. a week, between the wages of these two groups.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): Are the hours of work the same?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: I will not say they are the same. I hope my right hon. Friend will not make too much of that point, because the real question is what money they take home each week. There may be some variation in the hours of work, but I should say that the farm workers are working longer; I know that some of them are still working when the other men have gone back in their 'bus to Brighton.

Mr. Hudson: They are paid for overtime.

Mr. Henderson Stewart: The farm workers are paid from 48s. to 55s. a week, and the other men are paid almost double that sum for the work they are doing. Until three weeks ago, when the squad was changed, one of these men, a hefty youth of 19, spent the bulk of every day on the highly important job of making tea for his fellows and walking leisurely to the neighbouring village to buy chocolate, cigarettes and tobacco. I have recounted these facts because they are the standing and universal experience of countrymen in all parts of these islands at the present time. That is the contrast, and it is a bitter, galling contrast that eats into the hearts of the farm workers and their families. It is disturbing, nay, it is revolting the sense of fair play of every English village; it is undermining morale and hampering agricultural production; and what is worse, it is creating in the minds of the younger farm workers and their wives a contempt for the Government, for Parliament, and for all the State machinery that stands, or pretends to stand, for agricultural policy. It is creating a determination in the minds of these men to get out of agriculture at the first available opportunity, to get out of this toilsome, exacting, goalless trade which takes years to learn, but which gains for them as a reward from a grateful State only half of what is given to unskilled men who dig holes, semi-skilled men who make aircraft, and so on.
Of course, the same kind of unrest— I do not exaggerate when I call it unrest —is to be found among all other grades

of low or comparatively low-paid workers. I am not surprised, for example, that the engineers, the Amalgamated Engineering Union—for the purpose of this argument, I am entitled to include them as in a comparatively low-paid trade—are agitating for higher wages, and I have every sympathy with their claim. I have in my possession the statistics of a large factory in Scotland engaged as to half of it on general engineering work and as to the other half on aircraft production. The skilled engineers in the factory, men who have had five years' apprenticeship and often more years at an evening technical school, are earning £6 a week on the average. The semi-skilled aircraft workers, working side by side with them under the same management, men who a month or two ago were hairdressers, shop assistants, butchers, barmen, and so on, are now earning, for the same number of hours and the same overtime, £8 10s. a week on the average. It is no wonder that the Amalgamated Engineering Union are complaining So one can go on. It is no wonder that soldiers' wives are beginning to sit up and take notice. Their husbands and sons might have been doing the same kind of aircraft work had they remained at home, but before the war they joined the Territorials, or by some other means they now find themselves in the Army; and to-day, instead of their families getting £8 a week, they often have less than one-quarter of that amount. And the same thing applies, of course, to old age pensioners. These unhappy and disturbing conditions, which are to be found throughout the country, are not the fault of the workers or of their employers; they are the direct result of the failure of His Majesty's Government to pursue a bold, decisive policy on the whole question of wages.

Mr. De la Bère: A national wages policy?

Mr. Henderson Stewart: Certainly, a national wages policy. This problem lies at the root of domestic happiness, and therefore, of national morale. Not everybody seems to realise that the amount of money which goes into a poor man's house each week is probably the most important thing that happens in that house during the week. Therefore, national morale is affected. Despite the importance of this problem, the Government have failed to face it. On the contrary, they have con-


sistently funked it. Their latest gesture, this pitiful White Paper on prices stabilisation, condemned alike by labour and capital, is not only funk, but blind funk. I gather from Sir Walter Citrine that the principal authors of the White Paper were the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Labour. They really ought to consult the Prime Minister in these important matters. It is all set out in "The World's Crisis," which I have found to be an invariable guide to the efficient prosecution of the present war. As we used to say in another sense of "Mein Kampf," "The World's Crisis" never lets us down. I commend to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Labour a passage which occurs on page 1130 of "The World's Crisis": —
There is an extraordinary contrast between the processes of thought and methods of management required in war and those which serve in peace. Much is gained in peace by ignoring or putting off disagreeable or awkward questions, and avoiding clear-cut decisions which if they please some, offend others.…In war everything is different. There is no place for compromise in war.…In war the clouds never blow over, they gather unceasingly and fall in thunderbolts. Things do not get better by being left alone. Unless they are adjusted, they explode with shattering detonation."—
I ask the right hon Gentlemen to bear those weighty words in mind—
Clear leadership, violent action, rigid decisions one way or the other, form the only path not only of victory, but of safety and even of mercy.
I do not think anyone would say that this White Paper expresses a very violent action. It certainly reflects no rigid decision, and it is conspicuous only by its lack of clear leadership. The only thing clear about it is that it clearly passes the buck to someone else. Unable or unwilling to decide themselves upon this vital matter of public interest affecting the livelihood of every citizen, the Government have passed on the problem of wages to the trade unions and the employers to do with what they like. It is an extraordinary position, and we have to consider what will be its results.
I think we shall find individual unions, quite independently of each other, will at once present claims for higher wages based on the increased cost of living. There will be no correlation in their

efforts. Each will form its own judgment of conditions and select its own figure. There will be a good deal of negotiation— or so-called negotiation—but since each side will know perfectly well that the Government will pay in the long run—and every contract has a clause which covers the employers against any increase —ultimately, as sure as I stand here to-day, the claim will be accepted by the employers and up will go the wages. The stronger unions will of course get the better results. In those groups, that is where wages are fixed by the traditional voluntary machinery of wage negotiation, there will be little or no difficulty. The Government have said that it is not their responsibility; they will not intervene, and consequently the wages asked will be accepted and paid.
Meanwhile other workers in trades not supported by strong unions—trades controlled by trade boards and central wage boards, such as agriculture—will be putting in their claims. But their experience will be rather different, because here the Treasury, who, as my hon. Friend has just pointed out, have usually a representative on the boards, will exert their influence. The Treasury will take care that the full rigours of the White Paper thesis will be imposed. And so I anticipate only a meagre increase will be given to agriculture, despite the plea of my hon. Friend, and I add all the weight at my command to his plea. The prospect for agricultural workers is, I fear, bleak.
An even sterner fate awaits all those other classes—soldiers' wives, old age pensioners and those with fixed incomes coming from Government sources. Theirs will be the last claim to be considered or met, and, though their needs may be the greatest, and their poverty the most severe, they will be put off and put off with the specious but terrifying plea that if their claims for higher allowances is admitted, then inflation will indeed raise its ugly head and the country will be ruined.
What does all this mean? It means that the inequalities of reward—already glaring and already disturbing the peace of every community—will be greatly exaggerated in every part of the country. It will mean that widespread increases of wages, gained by that first group of which I spoke, will substantially expand pur-


chasing power and, therefore, in a market of limited consumer goods, will inevitably send up prices. It will mean that in order to maintain stability of food prices, the Exchequer subsidy will require to be largely increased, which in turn will widen the gap between income and expenditure and make higher taxation essential. With each rise in prices and wages the lot of the poorer people and the comparatively low-paid workers, such as farm labourers, will become increasingly desperate. The Prime Minister has described the conditions which appertained in the last war. He has told us, in his own penetrating phrases, of the "fierce demand for equalisation of sacrifice." The demand could not be withstood by the Government of the last war, and I warn Ministers that it cannot be withstood by the Government in this present conflict. The scandal of unequal reward for service in the national cause is already too gross.
If this White Paper remains the last word on Government policy, let us recognise that we are running right into danger, that we are facing precisely that "shattering detonation'' about which the Prime Minister has spoken. What is needed? Surely there is no room for doubt or dispute? What is needed isa national, comprehensive and coherent wage policy affecting all industries, which will deal fairly with all classes, which will secure justice for the poorer as well as for the more fortunate groups of workmen, and which, above all, will lay down and control a stable momentary policy for the nation, without which it will be impossible to finance a victorious war. In such a war as this, where the Government, in effect, order all production, take delivery of all production and pay for all production, it surely is absurd to suggest that Ministers have no responsibility whatever for wages. There is no sense in such a contention. On the contrary, I believe it is the duty of the Government to embrace the problem of wages as a whole, and to determine over the whole field of industry the wages to be paid and the conditions to be enjoyed.
I am told that such a plan is unacceptable to the unions and unwelcome to the Government. But is it? I have referred already in another speech to the famous occasion in May last year when the Lord Privy Seal declared that "the

Minister of Labour will be given powers to direct any person to perform any service required of him "and that" the Minister will be able to prescribe the terms of remuneration, the hours of labour and conditions of service." I cannot believe that the Lord Privy Seal was "kidding" the House when he made that declaration. I believe he meant what he said, and, if he did mean what he said, he must obviously have considered the matter beforehand. He must have given it very careful reflection, with the co-operation of the War Cabinet, and in consultation with the interests concerned. He must have talked with the trade unions before making that most important announcement. If it was considered desirable-and necessary then for the Government to contemplate laying down the terms, wages and conditions for industry as a whole in order to procure fair play, why is it wrong now? They have failed to live up to the high promise of May, 1940, and the result is, and will continue to be, that the hon. Member for Normanton will appeal repeatedly and in vain in this House for those lower-paid workers, and I will continue to appeal on behalf of old age pensioners and wives of soldiers and every other class—and they represent millions—whose wages are low compared with others. The unfairness and injustice of present conditions are undermining the morale of the nation, and, as one who seeks an early and complete victory, I protest against it and demand a speedy and effective answer from the Government.

Captain Conant: I have no doubt that the plea of the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) will receive support from all sections of the House. Indeed there has been agreement, not only since the war, but before the war, that agricultural workers were grossly underpaid as compared with the workers in other industries. It has been an obvious injustice, but the excuse was made that before the war the agricultural worker received certain special advantages in the matter of food and other things. That to a large extent has been changed to-day. There has been rationing, and these small advantages which might have been said to be some compensation for lower wages have disappeared. On that account, if for no other reason, there is ample justification for an increase


which would go some way towards meeting the higher wages paid in other industries.
Wage conditions now have reached an altogether false position. In pre-war days we still clung to the old theory that the value of the produce sold by an industry ought to be connected somehow with the wages paid in that industry. That was a theory which did not work too badly. Under the eye of the trade unions one found, over industry as a whole, that whenever an industry's condition improved, wages went up in most industries. Nowadays that position has ceased to exist. In practice the source of wages is the State. The Government, either by direct orders, as in the case of munition factories, or by subsidies or by price fixing, provide the cash which pays wages. Therefore the State has a special responsibility to see that the level of wages is fair and just between one class of worker and another.
In connection with agricultural wages a figure has been suggested of £3 a week. That is the figure which came before the Central Wages Board. I wonder how it was reached. Is it supposed to represent what the farmer is able to afford without prices being raised? I do not think that is really the case. I am quite sure that if a minimum wage of £3 were introduced, the result in the case of the majority of farms would be a reduction in the wages of those who are now paid more than £3. In certain branches of farming—dairy farming especially—it would be quite impossible to maintain production at the present rate and pay a minimum wage of £3. I do not think that £3 is intended to represent what the farmer can afford to pay without prices being raised. It does not, of course, represent the estimated value of the services of an agricultural worker.
There is no comparison, as was said just now, between the pay of the agricultural labourer producing food and the pay of the unskilled worker over the hedge digging for an aerodrome and receiving twice or three times as much as the agricultural worker. It does not represent, therefore, either what the farmer is supposed to be able to afford or the estimated value of the services rendered by the worker. There is, as my hon. Friend said just now, only one answer

to the problem, and that is for the State to lay down rates of wages throughout industry throughout the country. Though it may seem an appalling task to express in money value the services rendered by the fighting Forces, by A.R.P. workers, munition workers, food producers and others, yet whatever the result may be and however much it may be criticised, it would be far fairer to the workers than the conditions which exist to-day. It would, I think, go a long way towards preventing inflation.
Objections might be raised by trade unions, but we have gone into the war with the determination to give up our individual rights. We are fighting for liberty, but at the same time we are determined to give up individual rights which were felt to be necessary before the war. We want, once victory is won, to get our individual rights back, but I am sure trade union leaders would be ready to give up any of their functions, if necessary during the war for the common good. I believe that this system which has been advocated on numerous occasions is the only fair system with regard, not only to agricultural wages, but wages as a whole. That, of course, would mean going a long way beyond the powers of the Minister of Agriculture. I would only ask the Minister to recognise that if it is agreed that agricultural workers should receive higher wages, then the source of those wages must be provided by the State, directly or indirectly. If it is decided that prices should not be increased, then the State must so arrange things that wages are provided by the taxpayer. No other system is practicable.
There are two other small points which have a bearing upon wages, and a great effect also, I believe, on agricultural production. One is the fact that in the great majority of country villages "one finds a large amount of land which is not being cultivated. Land extending to probably several hundreds of acres even in small districts is waste land simply because it is in small parcels—a rood here and a rood there—and it is not an economic proposition for anyone to cultivate it for horticultural purposes. What is the answer to that? I read not long ago of some village which decided to cultivate all waste land on communal principles, and every man, woman and child gave


up so many hours a week to cultivating waste plots. I have no doubt that the result will be the production of a great deal of additional food. It is a great pity, to my mind, that this village which is held up as an example is the only village which is using waste land. If that is practicable in one village, it should be practicable throughout the country if a proper appeal were made to village communities.
As far as labour is concerned, in the majority of villages there is a large number of people evacuated from the towns —people bombed out in many cases—who have very little to do at present. Some of them, I am told, are very reluctant to take any part in the ordinary running of the village. It should be possible to bring together that unskilled labour which one finds in many villages on the one hand and the uncultivated land on the other hand. The other point relates to a disease which in my innocence I had imagined was confined to soldiers. I refer to the paper plague. It is well known that a great many divisions of the British Army are employed in compiling paper forms, and that the disease had spread even before the war to agriculture and other industries. I know of actual cases where production has been diminished by the enormous number of forms which farmers are called upon to fill up. There is a village in my constituency which was without milk for 10 days because no one could be found who would fill up the forms necessary with regard to milk, risking the enormous penalties to which they would become liable if they filled them up incorrectly. Ultimately it was settled by the good offices of the Ministry of Food.
I would beg the Minister to do everything he can to cut down the use of paper. I know it is inevitable, when you have control, to have an enormous number of forms filled up, but it should be cut down to the minimum, because it is seriously affecting production. I heard of a small farmer who wanted to mow a field, and he applied for a piece of barbed wire to cut the field in halves so that his stock could occupy one-half while he mowed the other. When the wire arrived, after many visits from officials and the filling-up of many forms, it was too late to mow the grass. These

muddles are bound to arise, but they are having a serious effect on some branches of farm production. I hope the Minister will not lose sight of this very important aspect of the production of food. Considering the position of agriculture when the war started, the way in which we have been able to produce food on land which one would have thought incapable of producing it is amazing. The agricultural community have done wonders, and I hope no restrictions will be put in their way which are unnecessary and which will diminish the rate of production.

Mr. Horabin: I want to say a few words in support of the claim of farm workers for a 60s. minimum, which I feel to be a very reasonable one indeed. It is justified by the cost of living and by the high degree of skill required of farm workers in carrying out their ocupation. Can the disparity between agricultural and industrial wages be justified? Of course it cannot. Even unskilled labourers and women industrial workers are earning higher wages than farm workers. The scheduling of agriculture as an essential industry makes the case for a minimum wage even stronger. No farm worker can leave the land for the factories. I do not disagree with that—it is vital that labour should be retained on the land—but it places the onus on the Government to see that farm workers get wages equivalent to those of comparable industrial work. They are entitled to that degree of compensation for their loss of freedom to offer their labour where they will. But, apart from the justice of their case, I think the grant of a 60s. minimum is justified, in fact dictated, by expediency. Surely the object of scheduling agriculture was to maintain output, and you will only get the necessary output from agricultural workers if they are contented and feel that they are getting a square deal and equality of treatment with other workers. The whole purpose of the Government's policy may be defeated if they fail to accord equality to agricultural workers. That, of course, would be disastrous from the point of view of our war effort.
Is it practicable to give a minimum wage of 60s. a week to farm workers? Cart the farmer afford it, or does it mean increased prices again—another turn of the inflationary wheel? I say unhesita-


tingly that it is the duty of the Government to see that the farmers are put into a position to pay an adequate wage now and in the future. Czechoslovakia before the war was even more dependent upon her industrial exports than we are, but she was able, by bold constructive measures, to put agriculture on a sound basis, in fact to increase the price paid to the farmers for their wheat and at the same time to reduce the- cost of bread to the industrial population, and that without any subsidy whatever. If an industrial nation like the Czechs could achieve that result we should be able to do at least as much. What stands in the way of the Government giving this 60s. minimum? Is it that they are afraid of the inflationary effect of even justifiable wage increases? I suspect that they are trying to reach two diametrically opposed objectives by the same means, and that just cannot be done. If they want to induce the people to work their hardest they must have a co-ordinated wage policy. At the same time, if they want to stop inflation they can only do it by preventing people spending. They are trying to stop people spending by discouraging wage increases, which are vitally necessary in order to get the people to work their hardest. As a result of this policy the Government are getting the worst of both worlds. They are getting inflation and they are getting discontent in all sections of the community.
The way to stop inflation is not by keeping down wages or refusing justifiable increases in wages but by complete rationing. That stops people spending either their incomes or their capital on consumption. If the Government control inflation by complete rationing they can use their wages policy as an inducement to get people to work their hardest. If they do that, they can co-ordinate wages and they can give essential increases to underpaid sections of the community without being afraid that those increased wages are going to increase the competition for our diminishing supplies of consumption goods as the war goes on. It is, I believe, possible for the Government to insist on a minimum wage of 60s. a week for the farm worker and to see that other underpaid sections of the community get wages which enable them to maintain a reasonable and decent standard of living in

accordance with the war effort they are putting forward.

Mr. Moelwyn Hughes: Earlier to-day I asked a Question of a colleague of the right hon. Gentleman's and followed it with a supplementary in which I asked whether the Minister was satisfied. The answer was, "It is not for me to be satisfied; I am just giving the facts." Not dismayed by that reply, I will repeat the Question to the Minister of Agriculture and ask him whether he is satisfied that 48s. a week is good enough for the agricultural worker for a week's work? I will go further and ask him whether he is satisfied with the discrepancies that arise in the administration of the 1940 Act with regard both to wages and hours? The hours are laid down by the county committees. I believe that the Act of 1940 does not give the Board any power to legislate for hours, but only for the totality of wages without reference to hours. The question of hours is left to the county committees, and they vary up and down the country from 50 to 54 in the summer and 48 to 54 in the winter. In other words, it is possible to have six additional hours pulled out of the agricultural worker for the same wages.
In wages the discrepancies are even wider. Thirty-two of the 47 areas are still on the minimum of 48s. Fifteen of them have either laid down or have proposed minimum wages varying from 49s. to 54s. I have been through the list, county by county, and find discrepancies in adjacent counties which cannot possibly be justified. Why should it be 54s. in Lincolnshire and 48s. in Derbyshire? Why should it be 54s. in Middlesex and 48s. in Buckinghamshire? I can detect no principle whatever in the variations in wages in different counties. When learning the history of the law I used to be taught what is called Equity, the keeper of the King's conscience. When it was asked where the principles upon which equity is applied should be found, the answer was, "No, it varies according to the size of the Chancellor's foot." Looking at the decisions of these committees I can only say that in their administration of the Act the figures for hours of wages vary according to no known principle but only according to the consciences of the committee—whether they are hard and tough or tender towards the proper claims of the agri-


cultural worker. On the figures given by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith), I do not think that it will be disputed that the agricultural industry as an industry can very well shoulder the burden of the wage which is asked by the agricultural worker. The money is there, but the problem, unfortunately, is not as simple as that. If the industry has the money, has the individual farmer got it?
That is where we come up against difficulties which are very obvious in areas such as those I have the honour to represent. In my county and the adjacent counties we have an area of family farms. We have very few large farms, and in the whole county of Carmarthen I doubt whether there is a handful of farms of 250 to 300 acres. So long as the farm is of a size that the family can work, well and good, but there are plenty of farms which are just too big for the family and where they must have paid assistance. Hon. Members have pointed out the obvious fact that the farmer must get for his produce a proper return that will enable him to pay a proper wage. That is right but the figure for the produce that you would require to pay to enable the small family farmer to pay the proper wage for the worker he must have would have to be far more than the economy of the country might justify. I therefore ask my right hon. Friend to direct his. attention to the problem of the small family farm which must have assistance. During the war there has been a development of that assistance in the form of mechanical appliances. Tractors have gone round the countryside and have done the ploughing, drilling and harrowing. That has been a great help, but at the same time that this mechanical assistance has arrived we have seen the countryside denuded of the casual assistance upon which the economy of the countryside which I represent largely depends. The Army and munitions have taken it.
The mechanical assistance does not go far enough. My experience of the countryside is that in addition to the mechanical assistance there is that enormous neighbourliness that one finds, and I should like at this first opportunity I have had in the House to pay my testimony to the neighbourliness of the countryside, to the way in which people from one farm and another are prepared

to help each other. I have a cottage and two acres of ground. I ploughed up one acre to plant potatoes, but they would never have been planted had it not been for neighbourliness. The casual labour was not to be had. I am appalled when I think of what will happen when those potatoes have to be pulled. Neighbourliness will not provide nearly enough workers for that occasion. That is only a personal instance, but it does serve to emphasise the need for assistance to the small farmer, and to my mind that question is inextricably linked with the question of raising wages. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the provision of mobile assistance, which has been done for ploughing and harrowing, and will have to be done for the harvest, in all its implications in regard to agriculture as a whole. When that has been done it will remove the great argument which always meets the request for a proper wage for the agricultural worker, that there are some who cannot pay, and we know that they cannot pay. Take that problem away and we shall find that the industry is prepared to subscribe to the idea which is accepted on both sides of the House, that the agricultural worker should get a wage which is commensurate with his contribution to the national economy.

Mr. Granville: I should like to add a few words to the appeals made to the Government from all quarters of the House to give the agricultural worker a national minimum wage. The Minister of Agriculture told us the other day that he expects a record harvest, and I should have thought thiswas just the time to appeal to him to show generosity in this matter, especially when he has the assistance of a Parliamentary Secretary who used to make speches from this side of the House, on behalf of his party, advocating the cause of the agricultural worker. The fight in Parliament for the farm worker has been a long and an uphill one. It was not until a few years ago that we succeeded in getting unemployment insurance extended to agricultural workers. In the 1929 Parliament, when we had a Labour Government, we were hopeful that we should see the status of the agricultural worker recognised in our scheme of national economy, but, let us be frank, we had to wait for the National Government to give the agricultural


worker recognition in the form of extending to him unemployment insurance. I should have thought that the present war situation when, as one hon. Member has said, the State is, in effect, paying the wages, would have been the opportunity for the Minister of Agriculture to tackle the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this question and that is what it amounts to—asking at the same time for the assistance of the Minister of Labour, whose colleague, I am glad to see, is attending this Debate, to show his recognition of the importance of the agricultural worker. He should go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and say, "This is the time, when all parties in the State are supporting the Government, to give the agricultural worker a national minimum wage." We are rejoicing about the act of God in giving us a bumper harvest, and the Minister ought to take this opportunity to do what he can for the men who, more than anybody else, have assisted in getting that harvest.
Like other hon. Members, I recognise the difficulties of farmers. In my part of the world they have endured 10 years of depression. They are small farmers, they have to pay tithe, and they have had a continual fight, the arable farmers, against the world price of wheat and other problems, and when the Minister of Agriculture came along to demand from them greater output to make up the shortage in food supplies many of them found it absolutely impossible to give him that extra production because of lack of capital. I have taken the opportunity on many occasions recently—

Mr. Quibell: Recently.

Mr. Granville: —and in 1929, and in 1932—to say to the right hon. Gentleman and the Government that these small farmers should be given help to assist the Government in its drive for more food production. It is extremely difficult for them to have to meet a higher wage bill. At the end of the week, when he is making up his outgoings and incomings, the problem of finding cash for the wages is his greatest difficulty. Therefore, I agree with the hon. Member who opened this Debate that it is the responsibility of the State to give the agricultural worker a status and to enable farmers to pay a minimum wage. The Government do not hesitate to hand

out millions of pounds in various directions, and if the ordinary small fanner is unable to meet this extra wage demand, it would be an extremely good investment for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put him in the position of being able to pay a reasonable wage and thus to keep farm workers happy and satisfied on the land.
We hear a great deal about reconstruction after the war. I hope that in connection with any schemes of reconstruction the Government will remember the Debates we have had upon agriculture during the past ten or fifteen years, and face up to the problem of whether they do or do not want to have an efficient and effective agricultural industry in this country. It may be that we shall have to re-design our national economy. In peace time agriculture apparently does not matter to Governments, but when war comes my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture is faced with the superhuman task of going about the country to persuade farmers to grow enough food to make up for the Shortage in imported foods. The right hon. Gentleman is doing well at his job. He has earned the praise of this House and of the country. Let him do a great and generous thing, and set up his name in history, by giving this small concession to the men who have helped him to get his harvest—the agricultural workers of this country.

Mr. R. Morgan: I rise to take part in this Debate because I want to follow up what has been my policy since I became a Member of this House, and that is to secure a suitable living wage for the agricultural worker. Some time ago I seconded a Motion moved by my hon. Friend who opened this Debate to-day in favour of a minimum wage for agricultural labourers. I think we then asked for £2 a week. One of our chief supporters at that time was the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, whose absence to-day I regret, and especially the cause of it. I want to put a question to the Minister. I understand there is a minimum wage in Scotland of £3. A large number of agricultural labourers are receiving 60s. a week in Scotland. I was told that yesterday by a Member of this House. In the last Debate there was a lot of talk about economic and non-economic farms. My own theory is that if a farm cannot pay a labourer 60s.


a week, it is a bad and an uneconomic farm. I do not know whether the Government should step in and help such poor farmers. The hon. Member for Eye (Mr. Granville) said that in peace-time these things did not matter, but that is just where I differ from him. When it comes to resettlement after the war we shall want to attract workers back to the land, and we shall have a very poor chance of doing so if we can only offer them 48s. a week. What sort of response shall we get? We must look much further a field in this matter, and not only in terms of war production.

Mr. Granville: The hon. Member has referred to me. I meant to say that in peace-time it did not matter to the Government.

Mr. Morgan: Again I cannot agree. This industry does matter to the Government and to everybody. It will matter just as much after the war as it does during the war. I think that hon. Members on all sides of the House will agree with that statement.

Mr. De la Bère: This may be one of the shortest speeches I have made. I rise merely to support what has been said about increasing the wages of the agricultural worker. I am consistent. Ever since I have been in this House I have fought for this cause. I have voted against the Government and, together with the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Mr. R. Morgan), defeated them in a Committee. I make no apology for doing so, and I should do the same again. Some heart should be put into this matter. I remember a former Chancellor of the Exchequer saying that what was wanted throughout the country, and not only in the coalmining industry, was plenty of work and the heart to do it. That was the secret of success and was the source of all happiness. You may multiply the most wonderful machines and have the most modern methods but the human element is the most important, and will remain the key to the situation. I believe in the human element, and the only reason I am in this House is because I want to assist those who need assistance; and I lend my voice to what has been said to-day.

The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. R. S. Hudson): One of the most interesting facts arises out of the speech made by the hon.

Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Horabin), who said that the important thing was that farmers should be placed in a position to pay decent wages. The hon. Members for the Eye Division of Suffolk (Mr. Granville), East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart), and Carmathen (Mr. M. Hughes) agreed with him. One of the main reasons why we are facing the present difficulties is that the agricultural labourer is the worst paid worker in the whole range of industry, partly because of the policy which has been followed and advocated by these hon. Gentlemen in peace-time. No-one is more delighted than I at their speeches to-day, and I hope it is a permanent conversion One of my most important tasks is to see whether we can work out details of a satisfactory postwar policy to safeguard a sound and healthy agriculture as the central part of our national life. You cannot have a healthy and well-balanced agriculture unless farmers are in a position to pay reasonable and decent wages to their workers.

Mr. J. J. Davidson (Glasgow, Mary-hill): Surely the Minister is not suggesting that Members who made representations in the past on behalf of the agricultural industry were in favour of low conditions for the agricultural workers.

Mr. Hudson: Hon. Members may not have been in favour of them, but the effect of their policy certainly was to put farmers into the position that they could live only by paying miserable wages to their workers. There is no question about that at all. One of the main planks of our post-war policy must be the restoration of prosperity to agriculture, with the object of making agriculture so attractive in relation to other industries that instead of workers drifting off into the towns to cam more money they will want to remain on the land, where they are needed, and conditions on the land shall be such as to attract the brightest of our young people.
It is an entire misconception to believe that the work of an agricultural labourer is unskilled. The agricultural labourer is among the most highly-skilled of any workers. There has been a gap between the agricultural labourer and other workers—not only the industrial worker but other workers in the countryside. I discussed this matter with the Minister of


Labour, and one of the objects which we had in view last year in suggesting that there should be a considerable increase in agricultural wages was to try to lessen that gap. I confess that I, personally, have been most disappointed by the result, because we only succeeded, by increasing agricultural wages, in lessening that gap for a very short time. The immediate result which followed in a very few weeks was that the other people in the countryside said they had always been accustomed to having more money than the agricultural labourers, and that as the latters' wages had been increased by 10s. or 12s. their wages must be increased too. So, the gap persists. There were, for instance, the roadmen. No one can claim for a moment that the roadman's job is as skilled as that of the agricultural worker, but he has always been accustomed to receiving more than the agricultural worker—I do not know why —and now I understand that claims have been put in that, because agricultural workers' wages have gone up, theirs must go up too. A great deal of what we have been trying to achieve has, therefore, not been achieved. Sooner or later, by some means, we simply have to lessen that gap.
That, however, is a very different matter from what we are considering today. I would recall to hon. Members, what apparently some of them have overlooked, judging by their speeches, that the Act of 1924 set up county wages committees. There are 47 altogether, one for most counties, in some cases one for two counties. These committees consist of representatives of the farmers, representative of the workers, an elected chairman and two independent members. Their task is to determine wage rates inside their counties, and it is quite clear when Parliament passed that Act it intended, by setting up those committees with independent powers, to recognise what is a fact, despite what the hon. Member for Carmarthen said, that conditions in agriculture in England vary enormously. For instance, some of the farmers in Lincolnshire can obviously afford to pay much higher wages than some of the farmers in Derbyshire. You cannot have a single flat rate of wages or hours applicable throughout the country, because of the enormous variation in natural climatic

conditions. But when the Act of 1940 was introduced it was not meant to supersede the committees; its object was, as I understand it, to establish a lower limit and to say that counties must not fix wages below a certain national limit. That is what the Act of 1940 set out to do.

Mr. T. Smith: That may be true, but evidently the Act intended that minimum to be sufficiently high, because in the Act itself it is laid down that if an actual minimum is suggested and any particular district or part of a district feels it cannot say it, it has the right to appeal.

Mr. Hudson: What happened last year was that the workers put forward a claim for a certain figure as the national minimum. It is an open secret that the Board had it in mind to fix the figure of 42s., the average minimum for the country being 38s. But my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and I came along and said it was necessary to try to lessen the gap, and, at the same time, to try and stop the drift from agriculture. We, therefore, suggested to the two sides of the industry, the farmers and the workers, that they should jointly suggest to the Board that instead of a minimum of 42s. the figure should be 48s. Included in that figure was a consideration for tying the men to the industry. If there had been no such consideration the Board would only have given 42s. The men therefore have had, and are having to-day, a definite consideration for being tied to the industry. In May of this year the workers put forward a request for 60s., and the Board, in accordance with its procedure, considered the matter and heard both sides. Will hon. Members please note, however, that under the terms of the Act the Board is required to take into consideration the general economic conditions of the country and also the conditions of the agricultural industry? That is a statutory duty which is laid upon the Board.
The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) asked me why I had refused to see the farmers. I refused because Parliament has entrusted the task of discussing and deciding on a minimum to the Board, and not to me. The Board was deliberately set up as a buffer between the State and the county committees, and it would be most improper, in my view, for me to exercise any influence over the


Board. It would be most improper for me to see the chairman, and it would be most improper for me to see either the men or the farmers. I have consistently refused to do so. They are quite entitled to ask me for information, and I have provided them with a document which was as impartial and objective a statement as I was able to devise. It is a long document, setting out as far as possible what was the actual condition of the industry. It ended by saying, and I believe it to have been true then and to be still true, that it was impossible until the harvest had actually been gathered in to say what would be the effect over a period of 12 months of the operation of the new rates of wages.
It is quite true that when the new rates of wages were under consideration the Government made as good an estimate as possible of what was likely to be their effect and cost. We did allow a margin, and as it turned out we were very wise in allowing that margin, because we made our calculation on the basis of an average rise in the minimum of between 8s. and 10s., whereas actually it has been more than that. In one case the rise for an individual county was, I believe, 17s. The total cost to the farming community has therefore been in excess of the figure we forecast. Not only has it been in excess of the figure we forecast, because the average rise was greater than we allowed for, but it must also be remembered that the rates averaging 38s. which were in operation before were paid to men who, in a great number of cases, were stood off for quite material periods during the year. During the past 12 months, very largely as a result of the orders for increased production and the increased work which has been imposed upon farmers, and also because the farmer was afraid of losing his men, there has been in fact no unemployment—I was going to say no unemployment at all, but that would be a slight exaggeration. The amount of unemployment among agricultural workers has been insignificant. Therefore, the agricultural worker, taking the year as a whole, is definitely much better off.
Some hon. Members, I think the hon. Member for East Fife, talked as though 48s. was what the average farm worker earned in the average week. That is not so. Forty-eight shillings is merely the national minimum. No fewer than 14

counties have already increased the county minimum to more than 48s. In addition there is much working of overtime, particularly during hay and corn harvest. There must be very few workers indeed who, through the summer at all events, have earnedless than —3 a week. I have every sympathy, as everyone must have, with the agricultural worker feeling in these times that he is earning less money than he should, on seeing a worker on an aerodrome earning more, seeing, perhaps, his own child come back with —4 a week. Equally, let us not exaggerate. I asked the Minister of Labour about this point this morning and he told me that no one working on an aerodrome could earn —5 unless he was working overtime.

Mr. T. Smith: What is the wage? I can tell the right hon. Gentleman if he wants to know.

Mr. Davidson: The right hon. Gentleman has put forward the argument that because hon. Members here have supported industrial workers to get a certain rate of wages it has affected agricultural workers. Now he is saying that there is not so much difference between them, after all.

Mr. Hudson: All that I am saying is that it is obvious that an agricultural worker, seeing another man in the same village with bigger earnings, feels a sense of irritation, but do not let us exaggerate. When I provided a statement on the economic position of the industry to the Wages Board, I said quite definitely that I did not think that until the harvest was in it could fairly be said what had been the result of the increased wages. I still think that statement is true. The Board decided to tell the parties that they would meet again in November, and have virtually promised that when that time comes they will grant an increase of wages. So the position stands. In the meantime the proper thing, as the Wages Board said, and as I have repeatedly emphasised, is for the workers to set in motion, and keep in motion, the statutory machinery for settling wages in the counties. The 1940 Act was not meant to override that machinery. We see that in 14 counties wage increases have been granted. I think the proper thing to do is to move the counties to consider —

Mr. T. Smith: Surely the right hon. Gentleman must have looked at the facts. When his predecessor moved the Second Reading of the Bill he specifically stated that one reason why there was a Bill to make a national minimum was because the county system had failed from the fair wages point of view because of its anomalies.

Mr. Hudson: I am just trying to point out that whatever may have been true in the past that certainly is not true today because 14 counties have already increased the minimum, and the proper thing is for the workers to continue that process, to make application to the individual counties for such increases as the independent members think possible in the light of the circumstances in the county. I see no reason why that procedure should not be successful. It would be wholly wrong, and it certainly needs legislation, for me to intervene.

Mr. Shinwell: ; I intervene, having listened to some part of the Debate, and having convinced myself that the case presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. T. Smith) was one that deserved much more consideration than has been given to it. I have been at some pains to understand what is the defence presented by the right hon. Gentleman. Does he contend that the wages based on the regular machinery operating in the agricultural industry are high enough, or does he contend that in the circumstances—he used the term "in the circumstances"—of such county no higher wage can be paid? Is that the defence, or is the defence that the Government wash their hands of the whole problem? If that is the defence, I must be quite frank. I want to ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is speaking for the Government as a whole. Is he speaking for the Labour Members in the Government? [Interruption.] All I can say is that I am astonished; indeed I am staggered. I think that in expressing my astonishment I am reflecting the opinion of my hon. Friends behind me.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: The hon. Gentleman spoke just now of the Government washing their hands of responsibility in this mater. He must have forgotten that he and those behind him warmly supported the Bill in 1940 which supplied exactly the machinery

which makes it necessary for the Minister to keep his hands out of the matter.

Mr. Shinwell: I am obliged for the intervention of the hon. Member, which appears to me to be somewhat irrelevant. If he feels it is quite a relevant intervention, I will furnish him with a reply. It is perfectly true that we supported the machinery, but it is equally true that in existing circumstances the machinery is found to be defective because it provides variations—

Mr. Speaker: What the hon. Member is asking for would need legislation. That is quite out of Order.

Mr. Shinwell: I am grateful to you, Sir, for correcting me and putting me in Order. With great respect, may I make the submission that it appears that many hon. Members have equally been out of Order?

Mr. Speaker: I quite agree, but that does not justify the hon. Member's continuing that line of argument.

Mr. Shinwell: Perhaps I lack the necessary tact. I do not propose to embark upon a discussion of the machinery regulating wages in the agricultural industry. I am not entirely at fault. My right hon. Friend dragged me by the hair of the head into this. My right hon. Friend has stated the case for the Government, and for right hon. Gentlemen in the Government who surely are sympathetic to the claims of the agricultural worker, who surely believe that a —3 minimum is not too much for him, who surely have believed for a long time that a —3 minimum demand ought to have been met long ago, who surely believe that the agricultural industry at present, with certain exceptions that could be met, can afford, with prices and subsidies as they are, and with the whole forces of the Government behind the agricultural industry, to pay a decent wage. I am surprised at my right hon. Friend. Does he still regard himself as the protagonist for the farmer interests in the agricultural industry, as was once the case in peacetime, when speeches to that effect were made so frequently from the Government benches, or does he regard himself as the friend of the farming industry as a whole, including the agricultural worker? I think we are entitled to some reply.
I will say just a word, although I shall not transgress the Rules of the House, on


the position of the Government in this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton made what I regard as a very modest request. Requests that come from this side- are, in my judgment, frequently far too modest. He did not say to the Government, "We demand immediately a £3 minimum." He asked the Government to use what influence they had, presumably with the independent members on the Central Wages Board and on the county wages boards, to secure a decision in favour of a £3 minimum wage. It will be found, when we come to consider the implications of the White Paper, that the Government will have to proceed much further than they have done if they are to satisfy contending elements in this country engaged in the industry and, at the same time, deal with the vexed question of inflation. But that is not the question. We ought to know where the right hon. Gentleman stands. Is he prepared to use his good offices with the committees? What is the answer? I will sit down for a moment, and wait for a reply. No answer? Then we can only assume that the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to use his good offices with the independent members. In other words, as I have already remarked, he washes his hands of the whole problem. The agricultural workers must wait until November, until the Wages Board meets. In November the harvest will be over. What is to happen then?

Mr. Hudson: I do not want to be misquoted. I said that the proper procedure was to make use of the existing wages machinery which is open to the workers. I said that if use is made of the proper wages machinery, the county committees can be moved to consider the question of increasing wages, and that that has been done.

Mr. Shinwell: I cannot see why my right hon. Friend imagines that I have misquoted him. He certainly referred to some proceedings which might take place in November. But I will take the point he has made. He says that the workers may avail themselves of the existing machinery. They have done so, and they have had increases, but in no case has there been an increase which brings the wage to £3 a week. Is it proposed that they should again appeal to the Wages Board, and then again appeal to the Wages Board—that this is to be a con-

tinuous process throughout the war, engendering discontent around the countryside? Hon. Members opposite have appealed so often for consideration to be given to the farm labourer. They have declared so frequently that the first charge on agriculture should be a contented farm working community. Do they propose now to allow the Government to get away with it, as the Government have so often got away with it?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is again proposing something which would require legislation. On the Adjournment he can only propose any thing which would involve the use of existing machinery.

Mr. Shinwell: I was a little late in coming to my point, because I directed attention to what my hon. Friend had asked for—not that there should be a reorientation of the whole of the ma chinery, but that the right hon. Gentle man should use what influence he has to induce the independent members on the committees to give their decision in favour, not of a variable wage, but of a minimum wage of £3 for the country as a whole—perhaps with certain exceptions. That does not require legislation.

Mr. Henry Strauss: Does the hon. Member suggest that it would be a proper thing for the Government to seek to influence independent members of a tribunal? If they did that, would those members remain independent?

Mr. Shinwell: It is the easiest thing in the world. I am surprised that my hon. Friend, who belongs to the legal fraternity and has a thorough knowledge of jurisprudence and matters of that kind, is not aware how easy it is to deal with this matter. It is not interference. All that my right hon. Friend requires to do is to say that the Government believe that the farm workers of this country, taking them by and large, ought, in existing circumstances, to have a minimum wage of £3 a week. If my right hon. Friend said that, it might be regarded as influencing independent members of the committees. I do not know whether it would influence them, but it would be a. very fine gesture indeed, and it would go a long way towards satisfying the farm workers. But what has my right hon. Friend done? He has gone the other


way round. He has said that, having regard to the increases they have received in some counties, having regard to the fact that they have worked overtime at some times, and having regard to the fact that workers on aerodromes do not earn £5 a week without working some overtime, he cannot do what he is asked to do. In fact, he has put up the best employers' case that has been made for some time.
I am surprised at my right hon. Friend, because he has a heart of gold. He is not so stern and unyielding as his exterior would represent. He is a man who has himself been favoured by fortune, and I know he would not desire that the farm worker, in his humble capacity, should be deprived of a decent standard of living. But maybe the Minister has somebody behind him. Perhaps it is the Chief Whip, who is trying to emulate his predecessor, with some measure of success —ready to keep the House and the hon. Gentlemen opposite in order. He has behind him the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is afraid of inflation and who has agreed to the Government's wage policy of increases through the required trade-union machinery. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour said recently that men should be allowed to earn high wages because it would mean more production, but it seems that with agriculture it is quite different. You want production but not high wages. The Government and their agricultural friends do not want the agricultural worker to have too high a wage or even a decent wage in war-time, because once a man gets a decent wage he forms the habit of demanding a decent wage and he may want it in peace-time. Is that the trouble?
We on this side are extremely dissatisfied with the conduct of the Government, and we want to make this dissatisfaction known to the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton has worked hard on this problem; he has been round the countryside and knows what people are saying. He has referred to the patriotism of the farm workers, and I applaud it, although I am bound to say that I do not like their occasional docility. I am sorry that my right hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry is not here to-day, because I re-

call that when he was on the opposite side of the Table, when we were called the Opposition, he made eloquent orations on the subject of raising the standard of living of the farm worker. I wonder whether, in his unfortunate temporary seclusion, he would be ready now to fortify the views of the Minister? Would he care to come to that Box and say that the farm worker has had a square deal? The Government ought to be ashamed of themselves on this matter. Are they not a little ashamed? I believe that deep down in the Minister's heart he feels a little ashamed. At least I hope so, for his own good. I should hate to feel that he has it on his conscience that he has not done the right thing. At any rate, this is not the last word, not by a long chalk. We are going away for a little time, and there will be discussions and legitimate agitation in the country, coupled with the war effort. Men will go on producing but will continue their legitimate demands for a decent standard of life for the salt of the earth of this country —the agricultural worker. I hope my hon. Friends will associate themselves with this agitation and that Members in other parts of the House will feel as we do in saying that the claims of the agricultural worker should be met.

Colonel Sir George Courthope: I had not intended, until a few moments ago, to raise my voice in this Debate, but I do so now because I believe that in every quarter of the House there is the same motive—that we want to do all we can to improve the status of the agricultural worker. I admit at once that I may be prejudiced, because I am paying something over £1,000 every month in wages to farm labourers. I am hoping that by the sale of my crops and so on I may be able to get it back, although it is rather slender hope. If I am right in believing that we are all actuated by the same underlying motives, I think it is deplorable that this House should go away on the note of controversy and dissatisfaction that we have heard to-day. We all know perfectly well that wages machinery exists, but we cannot properly to-day or, I think, at any other time urge immediate legislation to alter this matter. That machinery can be put into force. As a man who has farmed on a large scale for a good many years and who has been on the friendliest terms with my agricultural


labourers, I cannot recall any occasion in more than 30 years when I have ever stood off one of my workers. I have always been able to find work of some kind.
While I yield to no one in my desire to see the farm worker earning a wage that will keep him contented and reasonably prosperous and will encourage his children to take his place and remain on the land, I want to remind those who share that view that if we attempted to go too fast in this matter we might defeat our own ends. It must be possible, and I hope it will be possible, if the fanner has to pay these good wages, to earn enough to live on and for the profits of the farm to be sufficient to maintain the fertility of the soil and to draw into agriculture what is lacking to-day—the necessary working capital. I would remind the House how greatly the agricultural labourer suffered after the last war because we attempted to go a little too fast.

Mr. T. Smith: Not with wages. After the last war this House gave a guarantee that four years' notice would be given to farmers before the repeal of the Act, and it was done within six months. Not only did the fall in prices ruin many fanners, but it also brought down agricultural wages, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman cannot say that we went too fast in this respect, because the figures are against him.

Sir G. Courthope: I was in the House at that time and took part in the Debates. I made a speech on the Second Reading of the Agriculture Act, and I may remind the hon. Member that I moved an Amendment for its rejection on the Third Reading, and got only three Members to support me. I did so on the grounds that T did not think the consuming community would tolerate the amount of subsidy required to give the guarantees. The point I am making is that, in our efforts to improve the lot of the agricultural workers, we must at the same time ensure that the farmers are able to pay the wages. If we try to do one thing without doing the other, we may ruin the farmers and, in the long run, cause greater poverty to the agricultural workers. Personally, I believe that this harvest and the farming accounts for this year may show that the farmers are in a position, as we all hope they will be.

to pay an even better wage than now. For I would remind hon. Members that a great many agricultural workers are receiving substantially more than the minimum wage at the present time. There has been a considerable shortage of labour, and the ordinary laws of supply and demand have operated. Farmers have been paying more than the minimum wage to get extra men on to their farms.

Mr. Shinwell: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman appreciate that the laws of supply and demand cannot operate in agriculture because the workers are not permitted to leave the industry?

Sir G. Courthope: The industry wants more men, and during the hay harvest farmers have been paying more to get them, and when they pay more to the extra men, they have to put up the wages of the other men, whether they like to do so or not. With regard to overtime, I do not want to overstate the case, but whenever the weather is suitable, the men are working as long as it is light. I do not know for how many hours on the average each week the ordinary agricultural labourer has been receiving overtime wages during the hay harvest, and is receiving them during the corn harvest, which is just beginning. I ask hon. Members to recognise that, although we may approach the subject from different angles, we have the same underlying motives; we want to improve the lot of the agricultural workers, and we want to enable the farmers to pay a wage that will improve the lot of their workers. I hope hon. Members will go away for the Recess recognising this common desire, rather than on a note of faultfinding and controversy such as we have heard to-day.

Mr. Davidson: Surely, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman recognises that the speech made by the Minister of Agriculture is an indication to the county committees that neither he nor the Government believes that the agricultural workers should have a minimum of £3 a week, and that if the Minister's speech is read by the agricultural workers it will arouse discontent, or will increase the discontent that already exists.

Sir G. Courthope: I listened with great care to my right hon. Friend's speech.


and I place a different interpretation upon it. He said that he could not properly receive deputations from either side, that he could not properly introduce legislation and could not even discuss legislation in this Debate; and he pointed out over and over again that machinery exists and that it is open to the agricultural workers in any county to put that machinery into motion and to make a case, as they have done in 14 counties already.

Mr. A. Bevan: If the Government have found it necessary to apply the Essential Work Order to the agricultural industry so as to prevent the-workers from using the normal leverage for raising their standards, why cannot the Government make use of the powers which the House gave them last year to impose reasonable standards of wages on the industries they have controlled? The Minister does not need legislation, for he has power to do that already, if he wants to do it.

Sir G. Courthope: There is power in any county for the workers to put the local machinery in motion and to make a case, as they have done already in 14 counties.

Mr. Bevan: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman has missed the point. The Essential Work Order has been applied to agriculture.

Mr. Hudson: That Order has not been applied to agriculture.

Mr. Bevan: I use the term in a general sense. The Restriction on Engagements Order has been applied to the agricultural industry, and the agricultural workers, therefore, cannot use the ordinary leverage to raise their standards. Therefore, ought not the Minister to use his powers to impose decent wage standards in the industry?

Sir G. Courthope: The wage of 48s. a week was applied to the industry as a condition of the Restriction on Engagements Order, and there is nothing to prevent the representatives of the workers in any county from putting the local machinery into motion, as they have done in some counties, and as they will do in others, I hope.

Mr. T. Smith: There is a great deal of talk about the 14 counties which have

done this, and some of them have got increases of is. or 2s.; but surely the right hon. and gallant Gentleman knows that in most other counties the agricultural workers' representatives have made appeals which have been turned down, and the agricultural workers know that those committees are ranged against them.

Sir G. Courthope: I am sorry that hon. Members opposite take this line, because I can assure them that I am just as anxious as they are to see a contented and prosperous rural community. I recognise that unless there is in the countryside a standard of living and a wage that will compete successfully with the standard and wage in industries in the town, we shall not get that. But I think hon. Members opposite are using the wrong occasion and putting a wrong interpretation on the Minister's speech. Hon. Members opposite represent the workers, and I am an employer, but I ask them to believe that the employers of farm labour generally are equally anxious to be in a position to give their workers a satisfactory and established wage on such a level that the workers will not want to leave the land.

EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICE.

Dr. Morgan: We have had a very interesting Debate on agricultural workers and their wages. We have been discussing healthy agricultural labourers, and I want now to ask the House to consider the position of injured agricultural workers and injured workers in other industries. I see on the benches opposite an hon. Member who represents one of the industrial centres of Hampshire. I am a medical Member. Does the hon. Member opposite realise that an injured worker in that county, in Southampton, or in Portsmouth, cannot obtain adequate fracture treatment, in grade I hospitals, according to the recommendation made by one professional committee and one Inter-Departmental committee, without travelling as far as Oxford? I know this subject is very uninteresting to most hon. Members. A healthy person does not bother about medical treatment, but the moment he is injured or ill he takes a completely different view. I have seen medical Members of Parliament sick and dying, and seen the agony of their household and


their relatives when they were suffering, and I realise that an injured or a sick person is an entirely different person from one who is continually in good health.
This question of fracture treatment and rehabilitation has a fairly long history. In 1935 it was realised that all the good fracture work and treatment of the injured in the last war had been allowed to go down to rock bottom. A B.M.A. committee was organised, and that Committee was composed of medical experts, who reported on professional fracture work in the best hospitals. That Committee, as the Minister of Health knows, made a very valuable report. They stated that there was inadequate organisation of fracture treatment, imperfect surgical treatment in the best hospitals by the best tutors and by the best surgeons, failure in putting fragments together, and failure in keeping fractured fragments completely immobile and at rest—in other words the fragments were wobbling all over the place. There was failure in giving proper functional activity to prevent the injured parts from getting stiff. I will read a quotation from the report. This is what they say:
Everywhere joint stiffness has been inevitable, and recovery has been delayed frequently by the adoption of passive methods to the exclusion of active exercise. Stiff joints have become stiffer as a result of injudicious stretching, and the belief that massage alone will cure. Much wasting and recurring oedema (wasting) has been responsible for months of delay.
In other words, workers who have been injured in the course of their occupation, or as a result of an air raid, road accident, or home accident, have been crucified and maltreated in the exclusively protected, privileged order of barbed-wire professional indifference and laxity of hospital organisation. This may sound harsh, but it is true and unchallengeable, and has been proved 100 per cent. This surgical chaos is not due to lack of surgical technique or prowess, but to the lack of real organisation. The report laid down certain principles of fractured treatment, which the Committee recommended should be followed. These included segregation in one department, so that cases could be uniformly handled by a specially trained and experienced staff, and so that there could be team work and unity of control. Secondly, they recommended that there should be

definite treatment at successive stages until the injured man was ready and fit to return to his occupation. They also provided that there should be after care, perfect records kept and provision of rehabilitation centres. They also asked for extra-institutional co-operation between one institution and another.
This scathing report created such an impression that the Government appointed an inter-departmental committee to make a special inquiry. The Delevingne Committee confirmed these recommendations after making a very thorough inquiry throughout the country. They asked specially that fracture treatment should be organised. The Delevingne Committee stated in its report that the principles of fracture treatment were accepted by Government Departments. I wonder if the hon. Lady who is to reply will do me the privilege of telling me whether the principles are accepted by the Ministry of Health and the expert advisers of the Ministry on this subject. The recommendations are to be found on pages 28, 29, 30 and 31 of the report, and the only case where surgeons disagreed was in the case of a group of Glasgow surgeons.
I again wish to draw the attention of the House to a small point I made a few days ago in regard to industrial wastage caused by unorganised fracture treatment. Take, for example, the case of a fractured thigh-bone—the lower limb is very important, and you cannot get about if it is damaged. If, as is recommended, Organised treatment is followed thoroughly, the period of disability is 37 weeks, but when the treatment is unorganised it amounts to 66 weeks. If treatment is organised 9 per cent, are permanently incapacitated, whereas if it is unorganised 57 per cent. are permanently incapacitated, or more than half of the cases. In Wales, for example, which is notorious for its high accident rate in the mining and shipping industries, up to the time of the Committee's report there were only three hospitals classified in grade I. I should explain that the Delevingne Committee classified hospitals in six grades. It is in grade I only where the principles of treatment reported by the Committee are followed.
There were only three hospitals in Wales where adequate treatment could be obtained. There was no orthopaedic hospital. If there has been any improve-


ment since then, I should be glad to hear of it. In Scotland there was only one grade I hospital. Recently the Secretary of State stated that there were six new orthopaedic hospitals in Scotland, but he did not tell me whether those hospitals were up to grade I standard. In England, where there are also large industrial centres, only 74 hospitals are in grade I out of a total of 1,100. Therefore, 10 per cent. of the hospitals only are giving this proper treatment.
The Delevingne Committee stated that there was soon to be evidence of rapid headway in the reorganisation of fracture treatment. I should like to know where this fracture treatment has progressed, or whether there is still dry rot in the departmental handling of this pressing need. I do not think the present Minister of Health or the Parliamentary Secretary are responsible. Since they have been in office they have tried hard to amend matters and make good progress. But I think they are hampered by the conditions in the voluntary hospitals, and by the lack of organisation. Even the Voluntary Hospital Association are dissatisfied with the position. They say they are willing and anxious to do it, but that they have not got the money to provide for the necessary extensions.
This delay in the recovery of men is very vital from the point of view of production. I would like to ask whether the problem is being handled with the speed that is necessary. What is the position in Germany? Unfortunately, I cannot speak of anything that has happened in Nazi Germany, but as far as pre-Nazi Germany was concerned fracture treatment was properly organised. If there are German figures available for comparison bow, I would like to know them. Certainly in the United States, and I believe in Russia also, as far as my information goes, the organisation of fracture treatment is ahead of fracture treatment in this country. I am not speaking of surgical technique but of organisation.
I do not want to bore the House, but I want to ask the hon. Lady certain questions. The emergency hospital scheme was planned by the Ministry of Health for two years. We have had two years of war. I would like to know, not in a vague way but from definite figures,

what progress has been made in regard to grade I hospitals. Grades II, III, IV and V are of no interest, because they do not come up to standard. I want to know what progress has been made in grade I orthopaedic hospitals or ordinary hospitals. Cither grades are unimportant. The supplementation of orthopaedic centres is not enough. More organisation is needed. Even now I hear very disgraceful statements being made, and some of them have been authenticated, about these emergency hospitals. Equipment is incomplete, sometimes disgracefully so. Sometimes there are actually dangerous instruments, because I understand low tenders and inferior designs have been accepted. Have these instruments been scrapped, and at what cost? Even now dangerous X-ray instruments are said to be supplied.
It was said in the "British Medical Journal" last week that X-ray instruments are being supplied of such quality and such danger that after one minute's screening the radiographer not only burns the skin off the patient but almost sterilises the patient—that is, sterilises him from proper activities in the future—because it is difficult for a radiographer working in the operating theatre not to obey the surgeon's orders. It is not impossible that some of these skin troubles put down to plaster idiosyncracy are in fact due to excessive X-ray exposure of one minute, or defective instruments. It is an essential part of fracture treatment that the surgeon should have good instruments in the operating theatre. Are these instruments referred to in the "British Medical Journal" last week still being supplied? I know the hon. Lady would not approve of that. Are the Ministry of Health properly advised from the professional point of view? I am dubious about that. I want to see hospitals brought up to grade I at every stage of treatment in the wards, in the massage department, in the electrical department and in the re-training of patients to use their limbs and to use their muscles when they are sent to rehabilitation centres.
Now I want to refer to the latest circulars issued by the Ministry, Circulars 2346 and 2346A, sent to hospitals and local authorities. Certain additional classes have been put in for whom the Minister accepts financial responsibility. I would like to know how much financial


responsibility. According to the circulars, patients are still supposed to pay according to their means. Are the patients still to be bothered with almoners' inquisitorial inquiries, and what does financial responsibility really mean? Are accounts sent to the Minister? Are they vetted? Are they made periodically? Let me mention one or two anomalies: Civil Defence personnel is included, presumably whether injured on duty or not on duty, and presumably whether male or female. But part-time workers are not mentioned and presumably are not included. Is that so? Are they expected to pay? Are fire watchers included? If not, why not? In the circulars certain grades of workers are mentioned; others are not. For example, municipal workers are not mentioned. Shop assistants, plumbers, clerks, hospital workers—even nurses—are not mentioned. Why this differentiation?
I should like to ask the hon. Lady some questions. If she cannot answer them now, perhaps she will do at some other time. Do the Minister of Health and his Departmental advisers accept without reserve the recommendations of the 1935 British Medical Association Fracture Committee, accepted and confirmed by Delevingne Inter-departmental Committee, both with regard to treatment and organisation of fracture treatment amongst persons injured by accident? Is it the policy of the Government to implement the recommendations as soon as possible, especially of the Delevingne Committee with regard to grading? What real progress has been made in the last 24 months in this direction, seeing that fracture treatment is vital in war-time owing to increased casualties? Does the Minister of Health accept the grading of the hospitals in which the grade I hospitals are the only ones carrying out fully the organised fracture service? What is the progress in grade 1 hospitals? Why did the Minister classify his hospitals on new lines rather than the grading of the Delevingne Committee? What is the progress in the orthopaedic hospitals, especially for adult fracture treatment? What are the national finance commitments to hospitals, voluntary or other, approved by him as providing fracture treatment, or is his commitment only reserved for grade 1 hospitals? What is the estimated cost to the taxpayer of the financial implications for this Peter Pan service on no sure future foundation?

What is the supervision? When are reports given and accounts rendered?
I think I have said enough. I intend to continue pressing this subject as far as I can until I see some real results accruing from my poor endeavours. I appreciate very much the efforts of the Minister herself, but I want to see that further pressure is put on the hospital authorities, and I hope in a few months she will be able to report great progress in grade 1 hospitals and in orthopaedic centres up to the grade 1 standard.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Horsbrugh): I think the hon. member, who put a good many questions at the beginning of his speech and concluded with eight questions at the end, fully realises that it may not be possible to give him clear answers, "Yes" or "No," to all of them, but those that I cannot reply to at the moment I shall be glad to answer later on. Although he said he thinks both my right hon. Friend and I have been interested in the subject and are trying to do our best, I think he is still under the impression that there are people who are trying to prevent this scheme going forward and that it is not going forward as he and I would like it to do. I wish he would put some of those anxieties out of his mind. I wish he would go about the country and find out for himself, or come to the Ministry—

Dr. Morgan: I was recently in Scotland and was asked specifically to visit the Glasgow and Edinburgh hospitals, and I did. In the Debate on the Scottish Estimates I stated the conditions that I found there. Not one of the hospitals was grade I in the 23rd month of the war.

Miss Horsbrugh: I am not saying anything about what the hon. Member said in the Debate on the Scottish Estimates, because I have to remind myself from time to time that, although Edinburgh is my home and Glasgow is very near it, and I know them both, speaking as Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, I have no responsibility and practically no knowledge of the actual work that is being done in those hospitals. I am speaking to-day about hospitals in England and Wales, and the hon. Gentleman having put these questions to me, I would like to put one to


him. Will be give us the facts? He has told us that in certain places the instruments are disgraceful and that this work is not going on in particular places. It would be more helpful if he came to the Ministry and said to me or my right hon. Friend, "Such and such hospital treatment is not as I think it ought to be." This Emergency Hospital Service, set up and worked during the two years of the war, has been one of the marvels, I would almost say miracles, of organisation. The setting up of these extra hospitals and the work which is being done by devoted men and women is something of which we may well be proud, because I know that suffering has been mitigated and cures have been made which have hardly been equalled before in history.
I am willing for the hon. Gentleman or anybody else to criticise the organisation, but it is a pity that when he criticises that he does not also put before the public the marvellous work that has been done. The hon. Gentleman asked particularly about orthopaedic centres and asked why the grading was not the same as suggested by the Delevingne Committee. We agreed to their recommendations, but the reason centres were not graded in the same way is that we are now working under war-time conditions and there are certain hospitals in vulnerable areas on which we do not want to rely for long-term work because they are in vulnerable areas. We have, therefore, had to make a difference with regard to certain hospitals which in peace-time would be giving a long-term treatment.
Although I cannot reply to all the hon. Gentleman's questions now, I can tell him some facts which ought to re-assure him. The work has been divided up into new orthopaedic centres and new fracture departments, "A" and "B." "B" are short-term ones because generally they are in vulnerable areas. Apart from the Ministry's consultant advisers who are dealing with this problem, we have in each region consultants for this particular type of treatment to see that there shall be organisation and segregation of the people to be treated and that they shall have their treatment from start to finish. That is going on. now, and I am sure it will rejoice the heart of the hon. Gentleman. I am told that in the orthopaedic

centres there are about 5,000 beds and in the fracture "A" departments 5,000 beds, making 10,000 for this scheme alone.

Dr. Morgan: Is that 10,000 new beds? If so, it is a small drop in comparison with the size of the problem. In Scotland, with 20,000 casualties a year, let us say that 10,000 are receiving treatment in grade A and another 50 per cent are not. That would be equivalent to the loss of nearly 200,000 working days per year.

Miss Horsbrugh: I have tried to explain to the hon. Member that at the moment I am speaking of England and Wales, and the new scheme of the Emergency Hospital Services and of what improvement has been made. The hon. Member said that 10,000 beds are nothing, and that his argument would be just the same if I said there were none. I do not agree. I think that 10,000 new beds in this scheme are something of which we can be proud. The hon. Member does not agree.

Dr. Morgan: I think it is a tortoise pace.

Miss Horsbrugh: The hon. Member does not think that 10,000 beds are the slightest use. On the contrary, I say that these extra 10,000 beds will give many thousands of people an opportunity to get this up-to-date and carefully-arranged treatment. The hon. Member may not be pleased, but the people who will be treated will be pleased, and as he has taken an interest in this matter perhaps he will be able to take some pleasure also in the pleasure of other people who are getting this treatment. He also spoke about treatment being available only for certain people, asked whether there was to be payment and also raised the subject of part-time Civil Defence workers—I am not attempting to answer all the eight questions, but taking his case in outline. As he knows; the original scheme was for casualties. It goes further now to include transferred people, those moved from one hospital to another, and evacuees, those evacuated under Government schemes and those who have evacuated themselves.
Then the hon. Member asked why this applied to full-time Civil Defence workers and not to part-time workers The answer is that the part-time Civil Defence worker is another worker during the other part of his time, and he may quite


naturally come into some of the other categories. We have made the broadest list we can, and it is no use going beyond the accommodation that may be available, because we have to face the fact that in addition to heavy casualties from air raids there may be casualties from military or naval engagements. There is no reason why munition workers, shipbuilders and all the other categories of workers who might be mentioned should not be part-time Civil Defence workers. We have put in the full-time Civil Defence personnel because with them Civil Defence work is a full-time job. If the hon. Member will study the list, he will see that those within the Emergency Medical Services comprise a very large proportion of the population, especially when he realises the number of people who have been transferred to other areas. The other question he asked me was as to the pay—how they paid? The position is exactly the same as it would be in times of peace. Many of them are members of societies and organisations which make payments.

It being the hour appointed for the interruption of Business, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."— [Major Dugdale.]

Miss Horsburgh: It makes no difference to the payment at all. My right hon. Friend has given a list of those who come within this organisation, and I look forward very much to giving a full and definite answer to the hon. Gentleman. Most of it, I may say, will be in the affirmative.

INTERNEES (CANADA AND AUSTRALIA).

Mr. Silverman: I would like to begin by apologising to the House for making it necessary for hon. Members to stay here until the bitter end of what has already been a long and busy Session, but something occurred this morning about which I wish to raise a question, and if it is to be replied to at all, it can only be replied to now. It would not be possible to drag it over the Recess and begin again next Session. I hope that that course will not be necessary. I gave notice to the Home Secre-

tary that I proposed to raise it, and I regret very much to find that he has not been able to be present. I am ready to believe that he has a more important, or probably a prior, engagement which has prevented him from being here. What is in question is not merely the policy of the right hon. Gentleman's Department, but his own answer in this House to-day. I am bound to suggest that the answer which he gave was misleading, and it is difficult to believe that the right hon. Gentleman did not appreciate how misleading it might be. For that reason I regret very much that he is not here to explain exactly what he meant. However, perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will be able to do so for him, and perhaps we may, as a result of this discussion, clear up the position once and for all, so that the House may make up its mind whether the position is right or wrong, on the basis of an accurate knowledge of the facts.
This matter arose from Questions asked by various Members last week about the conditions of internees and deportees in Canada and Australia, whose release had been authorised. It is now clear that whatever the position may have been at the time of their original detention, or when they were deported or during the time they were in the Dominion the cases having been investigated by the appropriate advisory tribunal there is now no doubt that these men ought not to be detained. On the advice of the appropriate tribunal the Home Secretary has certified that these men come within one or other of the recognised caetgories for release. It is common ground that if they were in this country they would be released. It is also common ground that it is not their fault that they are not in this country. The onus is left on the Home Office here to justify the continued detention of these people. Their release has been authorised, yet they remain in detention because of two things. One is that there is not shipping accommodation to enable them to be brought back to this country. That is a thing which may be unfortunate, but for which, I entirely recognise, no one is to blame. No one complains that the lack of shipping accommodation to bring them back is the fault of the Home Office in this country. I entirely acquit them of that. It was then asked why they should not be


released where they are, in Australia or Canada, and here are the replies that the Home Secretary gave last week to that question. I am not going to trouble the House with all of them—they cover several columns of the OFFICIAL REPORT —but I will pick out two which are perfectly clear and specific. Asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth North (Mr. G. Strauss) whether he would make representations to the Government of Australia to release them in Australia, the Home Secretary replied:

I cannot do that. We made a firm agreement with the Government of the Commonwealth of Australia that this was a matter for them and them alone. It touches the immigration policy of the Commonwealth Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st July, 1941; col. 1519, Vol. 373.]

Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present.—

The House was adjourned till the next Sitting Day.